[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 12



GAZA:

Hamas sentences drug dealers to death by firing squad----The accused were 
convicted earlier this year of smuggling tramadol, marijuana, and opium from 
Egypt via tunnels.


A military court in the besieged Gaza Strip on Thursday sentenced 2 Palestinian 
men, identified by their initials only, to execution by firing squad.

The 2 men were sentenced to death in March after they were convicted of 
smuggling tramadol, marijuana, opium from Egypt via tunnels.

However, at that time the means of their execution was not specified.

The military court also sentenced 9 others to between 5 and 20 years in prison 
for involvement in drug dealing.

Hamas is routinely condemned by human rights organisations and foreign 
governments for its use of the death penalty.

Statistics compiled by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights state that at 
least 22 death sentences have been carried out in the besieged Gaza Strip since 
the Hamas movement won elections in 2006 and took unfettered control of the 
Strip following internecine fighting with Fatah militants in 2007.

After Hamas appointed Yahya Sinwar as its new Gaza-based political chief in 
February, many predicted that death penalties would increase under his rule.

Sinwar is notorious for being Hamas' "spy master" and for his militant 
background.

In 1988, Sinwar instigated an operation which resulted in the abduction and 
killing of 2 Israeli soldiers.

His brother, Mohammed Sinwar, is the leader of the al-Qassam brigades - the 
Hamas military wing which captured Israeli soldier Corporal Gilat Shalit in 
2006.

Shalit was later released in a prisoner swap in 2011.

In April, the Hamas government executed three suspected "Israel collaborators" 
by hanging after the killing of Mazen Fuqaha, a senior Hamas militant 
commander.

Under Palestinian law, death sentences are not illegal, but all death sentences 
must be ratified by the Palestinian president before being carried out.

However, the Hamas government in Gaza has carried out executions periodically 
without receiving approval from PA President Mahmoud Abbas, whose rival - and 
internationally recognised - administration is based in Ramallah in the central 
West Bank.

(source: alarby.co.uk)






INDIA:

Supreme Court compares triple talaq to death penalty


In a very strong observation, the Supreme Court has said that triple talaq is 
the worst and most undesirable form of ending a marriage among Muslims. The 
observations were made during a hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the 
constitutional validity of triple talaq. Chief Justice of India, J S Khehar who 
is heading the Bench also went on to compare triple talaq to death penalty.

While arguing the matter, the amicus curae informed the court that all over the 
world it is believed that if you say triple talaq 6 times, it means once. If a 
man says talaq thrice, it only means once, Salman Khurshid, the amicus curae 
said.

I personally find triple talaq sinful, Khurshid also said while adding that he 
believes that anything sinful could not have been ordained by Islam. A sinful 
act like triple talaq could not be part of the Shariat he also told the court.

The SC then asked him,"can anything sinful be taken as ordained by God and made 
into a law by men?" Something that is sinful in the eyes of God cannot be 
legal, Khurshid replied. The SC then sought to know how extensive the use of 
triple talaq was outside India. He replied that it is not practised in anyother 
country except in India.

He then suggested to the SC that the pronouncement of triple talaq is one 
sitting should also be regarded as pronouncement of talaq one time. This would 
solve 90 % of the problem that get created by instant divorce through triple 
talaq in one sitting. The SC then sought to know if triple talaq is India 
specific, then what led to its repeal in other countries. He replied whatever 
is happening in India may have happened there and this must have led to its 
repeal.

(source: oneindia.com)

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

Is there a viable alternative to the death penalty?


Since the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence to the 4 remaining convicts 
in the Delhi bus rape of December 16, 2012, there have been 2 categories of 
extreme reaction from the public - one is the cheerleading of the death 
penalty, and the other is disgust that such a punishment continues to exist.

Among those who believe the death penalty is wrong, there are 3 kinds - those 
who take issue with the arbitrariness with which a crime is deemed "rarest of 
rare", those who worry about the innocent being punished with death, and those 
who believe the state should not have the right to take a life away.

Even as the media reports on the reactions of the convicts and the plans of 
their lawyers to file review petitions, I find myself unable to disagree with 
the death penalty in a case where the involvement of the culprits have been 
proven beyond all doubt, and where the crime is so horrendous one wonders 
whether we are not better off without the perpetrators walking the earth.

In an ideal world, there would be no crime. In an ideal system, there would be 
such firm deterrence that no one would have the chance to repeat an offence. I 
cannot convince myself that everyone is capable of reform, or that remorse - 
even if truly felt, and not simply shown - can last through one's lifetime to 
the extent that one never repeats such extreme cruelty.

How can one even tell whether the remorse was for having committed the crime, 
or for having got caught for it?

There are certain crimes the commission of which speak to the psyche of the 
perpetrator. The word "monster" is popularly used, to describe child molesters, 
serial killers, and others with a record of viciousness against those who have 
no defence. What is it in some people, we wonder, which allows them to inflict 
such pain on someone else?

We search for reasons that would allow us to treat them not as monsters, but as 
fellow human beings - was it their upbringing, perhaps? Were they beaten or 
molested or subjected to other forms of cruelty when they were helpless to 
defend themselves? Did they have the wrong role models growing up? Is it 
poverty which needs to be tackled? Is it the mindset that needs to be changed, 
so that they will realise no woman is "asking for it" unless she literally asks 
for it?

But we must acknowledge that there are those who grow up in the same 
circumstances, hearing the same ideas, crippled by the same poverty, who do not 
allow these factors to define who they are or what they do. There are only 2 
possible explanations for the infliction of brutality - either it is a 
compulsion, or it is a choice.

If it is a compulsion, is the perpetrator capable of resisting the next 
opportunity that presents itself? If it is a choice, what does that say about 
the perpetrator, about someone who derives pleasure or satiation from such a 
deed?

One may argue that for as long as someone is in prison for life, he presents no 
direct danger to the world outside, unless there is a prison break - which is 
not impossible. But then, unless he is denied all human contact, is it not 
possible for him to influence others within the prison, who could then get out 
and present a bigger threat than before?

If the perpetrator is not put away for life - as the juvenile was not - would 
it not be possible for him to meet kindred spirits among other inmates and form 
a partnership when they are both outside? It is often argued that the death 
penalty is not an effective deterrent, that there is no recognisable drop in a 
particular crime after the death penalty is awarded to a perpetrator.

But then, it does deter that particular perpetrator from repeating the offence.

The only other foolproof way to deter him would be to lock him up in a room and 
throw away the key, with no access to anything except food and water, no walks 
for fresh air, no interaction with anyone else - a punishment arguably worse 
than death, with enough time for the criminal to feel remorse for what led him 
to banish himself from society and see out the rest of his life in a miserable 
hell-hole.

(source: Nandini Krishnan; sify.com)

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

Should we do away with Capital Punishment?


At its very core, the argument against death penalty comes down to the manner 
in which we understand crime and those who commit crimes. Do we view crime 
purely as actions of "inherently bad" people, i.e. attribute responsibility 
exclusively to the individual (and nothing else)?

Socialisation as a factor

It is impossible to view crime as something that only "inherently bad" people 
do and the view that the task of criminal law is to take away "inherently bad" 
people from our midst is untenable. The cliche that we are all products of our 
circumstances has much to offer here. This is not to suggest the absolute lack 
of individual agency in the things we do but rather to argue that the reasons 
why we do the things we do is influenced by a lot more than just individual 
will. In that context, a 4-year-old being raped and murdered, or raping and 
mercilessly killing members of a caste or religious group because of visceral 
hatred are all events that challenge our humanity.

As a society, can we look at murderers, rapists, paedophiles, genocidaires and 
ask ourselves the tough question of how they got there?

The point is that there is a process of socialisation that contributes to an 
individual's thinking that he can rape a woman, insert a rod into her and leave 
her on the street to die or that he can have such intense hatred for people of 
other communities that they should be stripped, paraded, raped and murdered.

Our demands for justice have to be tempered by this reality. Society then 
cannot demand to take the life of an individual when it has contributed to that 
process and outcome. Crimes are as much about social failure as they are about 
individual responsibility. Arguments on deterrence assume that crimes are 
individual problems, imagined and carried out by reasons of pure individual 
will. It assumes that fear will trump the massive influence of everything else 
in our lives.

Disproportionate impact

This is certainly not to argue that all persons with similar socialisation 
processes will do the same thing. That is precisely the reason for not deciding 
questions of sentencing only on the basis of crime categories. The burden of 
the death penalty has a disparate impact on the most marginalised and poorest 
sections of society. Our criminal justice system is in severe crisis given the 
rampant use of torture in investigations, a broken legal aid system and 
alienating trial processes. It is incapable of administering the death penalty 
in a fair manner and that is evidenced by the fact that over 30% of death 
sentences handed out by trial courts result in acquittals (not commutations) in 
the appellate process.

The state cannot seek to take life because it has an equal commitment to 
everyone within its fold. When a crime is committed, the perpetrator is not the 
only one breaking the social contract. Obviously the state has failed to 
protect the victim and society but at the same time it has also failed the 
perpetrator in equal measure albeit in a different way. At the risk of 
repetition, it is not to suggest that the perpetrator has no individual 
responsibility but that we must also recognise the failure of society and 
state.

As a society we find ourselves in a strange bind - on the one hand seeking more 
violent and harsher punishments for certain crimes and at the same time 
struggling with rampant impunity for certain others. Justice is not served in 
either situation. To tweak Martin Luther King's words, the arc of the moral 
universe must bend towards a more empathetic version of justice rather than a 
retributive one.

The crimes we are now witnessing cannot be addressed by simple punishments. We 
need drastic action

(source: Dushyant Dave is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court)

--

I am all for Capital Punishment because we have become a lawless society. The 
crimes we are now witnessing cannot be addressed by simple punishments. We are 
seeing horrific attacks on women, young girls, and boys who are raped and 
sodomised. People from the minority communities are being targeted and lynched 
in a barbaric manner by mobs.

The attacks on Dalits continue 70 years after India's independence. These are 
the vulnerable sections of our society that continue to be targeted. The 
punishment meted out to them should serve as examples of deterrence for others.

No recourse

Unless you impose a rigorous penalty like death which is the severest of them 
all, I don't see a solution to the problems we face. What we are also 
encountering is a peculiar problem where law enforcement agencies are not 
working for ordinary citizens. They are at the service of VIPs and simply 
removing red beacons from cars will not take away the privileges enjoyed by the 
VIPs. Roughly, over 1,50,000 personal security officers are guarding the VIPs. 
How do you protect the common man?

Let me illustrate with an example. Picture a small family with 2 children, a 
son and a daughter and suddenly, the daughter faces harassment from local goons 
which slowly escalates to serious offence leading to grievous sexual assault of 
the young girl.

Extremist forces

The parents have no recourse as prevention of crime is non-existent in our 
society. If the father complains, his complaint is barely registered in record 
books.

This scene plays out virtually everywhere in India - from small mohallas to 
villages to every nook and corner. How many death penalties have been imposed 
in our country compared to the staggering numbers of women being raped and 
murdered?

Unless you take drastic action, especially in the case of rape, murder and 
terror attacks, the situation will not improve. The attacks on our security 
personnel are increasing due to different extremist forces. Such killings must 
be visited with Capital Punishment.

Perhaps, this may be alternative to removal of the Armed Forces (Special 
Powers) Act in troubled States. Besides, the argument against Capital 
Punishment is not really tested. How can the state compensate for the mindless 
killing of innocent people?

What do you do as a society when it is impossible to reform criminals? What do 
you do to prevent the recurrence of heinous crimes against the vulnerable 
sections? All such acts call for a serious deterrence.

Slow wheels of justice

Besides, our legal system has multiple layers of appeal from the trial court to 
the apex court. These layers act as a safety valve against miscarriage of 
justice. Comparing ourselves to the West is not right as crime detection is a 
hallmark of most advanced societies. The kind of crime we are witnessing cannot 
be compared to the West. The Nirbhaya trial went on for 5 years before the 
Supreme Court upheld Capital Punishment for the killers of the young woman. The 
Ajmal Kasab trial took many years. I feel Capital Punishment must be provided 
for hate crimes as well which result in deaths or killings of innocent people 
in communal riots. The judicial system moves at snail's pace and so the 
criminal justice system is unable to offer protection of law.

What we need now is to focus on the victims. It is about time we had a 
mechanism to help victims.

State-sanctioned death penalty promotes fear of the law and serves as a 
deterrent to future offenders

(source: Pinky Anand is Additional Solicitor-General at the Supreme Court)

--

While an entire nation celebrated when the Supreme Court upheld death penalty 
for Nirbhaya's killers, it has once again raised the age-old question of 
whether we truly need capital punishment. There are 2 main arguments for 
capital punishment: 1st, that it acts as a deterrent; and 2nd, it gives due 
justice to the aggrieved.

When I think of the former a quote by Montaigne comes to mind: "We do not aim 
to correct the man we hang; we correct and warn others by him." It is my 
personal belief that state-sanctioned death penalty acts as a catalyst to 
promote the law and the fear of law which acts as a deterrent to future 
offenders.

Long-term impact

The crusaders against death penalty have often argued that there is no 
empirical data to confirm that capital punishments act as a deterrent, but 
studies have shown that even though it may not have an immediate effect, there 
is a long-term decrease in heinous crime. We should not ignore that the Supreme 
Court has in its wisdom struck down the challenge to capital punishment in 
Deena v. Union of India (1983).

The Supreme Court has laid down the scope of exercise of power to award death 
sentence and carved the rule of "rarest of the rare cases" to justify the 
extreme penalty, death, in the landmark judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1980), affirming the principle of "life imprisonment" as the rule and 
death penalty as the exception. When the crime is diabolical in nature and 
shocks the collective conscience of society, any mitigation cannot survive and 
the crime has to be tested on the anvil of the 'rarest of the rare'. The 
Supreme Court has put this position forward in various matters like Vasanta 
Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2014, 2017) and Machhi Singh vs State of 
Punjab (1983). This test was also applied in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee 
v. State of West Bengal (1994).

Sending a strong message

My view on upholding of capital punishment is echoed in Machhi Singh where the 
Supreme Court in a 3-judge Bench held: "The reasons why the community as a 
whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in 'death 
sentence-in-no-case' doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very 
humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of 'reverence for life' 
principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by 
killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles 
of this doctrine...The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being 
brought to book operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in 
killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a 
debt to the community for this protection."

The society is in uproar today as crime is constantly on the rise. Law 
enforcement structures are struggling to meet the expectations of the civil 
society. In a rapidly antipathic society, our legal structures need to send a 
strong message to enforce the idea that punishment will be "consequential" and 
commensurate to the crime.

In the land of the Mahatma, it might seem as an affront to our ideals as a 
nation, but I often find myself asking if it was a bigger affront to have a 
23-year-old raped and brutalised by 6 men who would then get to enjoy the 
privileges of television and other perks for good behaviour while sentenced for 
life.

(source: Anup Surendranath is director of the Centre on the Death Penalty, 
National Law University, Delhi. All iews expressed are personal----The Hindu)

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

Delhi rape case death penalty verdict 'misguided and naive'


With Friday's verdict elevating the case to "rarest of rare" status, Udwin 
called it "unfathomable".

The decision to uphold the death penalty for the four accused in the 2012 Delhi 
gang rape has "blinded the world yet again".

These are the sentiments of Leslee Udwin, director of the controversial 2015 
documentary, 'India's Daughter'.

Speaking to Khaleej Times from her home in London, Udwin said now the death 
penalty is handed down for rape, perpetrators will kill their victims so they 
cannot identify them.

"It is misguided and naive to think this verdict won't lead to more murders. 
These people don't value the victim's life enough to rape them, so it is just a 
small step to kill them."

More than 4 years after 23-year-old female medical student, Jyoti Singh, was 
beaten, gang raped, and tortured in a private bus in Delhi, the Supreme Court 
in India upheld a decision on Friday last, which will see Akshay Thakur, Vinay 
Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh Singh, hang.

But for Udwin, the decision is merely putting bandages on the wounds. It is 
simply a case of "making an example of the few to deter the many".

With Friday's verdict elevating the case to "rarest of rare" status, Udwin 
called it "unfathomable".

"I spent 31 hours interviewing seven rapists in Tihar Jail (Delhi) for 'India's 
Daughter'. One man spoke openly of his part in gang raping a 4-year-old street 
girl. Another spoke of a girl who had her eyes gorged out following a rape. So 
on what basis do you look at 1 rape case and say it is the 'rarest of rare'"

She said no case is of less importance, it was simply the public outrage of the 
December 16, 2012 case that earned it this status. "But to believe that 
sentencing these men to death is a solution to violence against women is wrong.

"This decision is hopeless. It is utterly clear that what these men did was 
wrong, but not one of these men felt empathy. By sentencing them to death is 
taking energy away from where the energy should be focused. We need value-based 
education, teaching people emotional intelligence, empathy, so crimes like this 
don't happen." As someone who is "against the death penalty full stop", Udwin 
said meeting "violence with violence is not the answer."

"These 4 men will hang next month and the sentiment now is 'problem solved', 
but this is not a problem solved. It is not going to make any jolt of 
difference and I think there is a strong argument that it could make matters 
worse."

She said what is dangerous about awarding the death penalty for rape here "is 
that is throws the spotlight on these perpetrators as rotten apples in a 
barrel. But it is the barrel that is rotten."

"The vast majority of people in this world are programmed by discriminatory 
thinking. We have taught these men how to think. Where were we in these men's 
childhoods, as governments, as systems of education that have a duty to educate 
these kids? Who taught these kids that girls cannot enjoy a 6.30pm movie with a 
friend? They were taught that a girl is of less value."

And to address the issue, we need to educate, not murder and violate.

"Whether it is the lethal injection in America, the electric chair, or hanging 
in India, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Decades have shown us that, 
because humans continue to commit crimes."

Instead of ignorantly turning the telescope the other way, Udwin said we need 
to stop looking to punishment as an answer, and instead find the root cause 
behind these heinous acts.

"The bottom line is; this death penalty is going to further lead people to look 
in the wrong direction. How many more people are going to be bombed in the 
world? How many more people are going to die senselessly? If these 4 men hang 
or not, it won't make a difference."

Unedited version of banned documentary in pipeline

When Udwin released her hour-long documentary, 'India's Daughter' back in 2015, 
she said it was the country's vigor to stand up for women's rights that 
compelled her to make the film.

But soon after the release, it was banned in India.

"Many, including feminists, argued that the documentary be banned because it 
could have interfered with Supreme Court judgement. Well how about the hysteria 
of the country interfering with the case, or the judge being influenced by a 
nation baying for these men's blood?"

Udwin said those who have seen film need to remember that they have a "very 
privileged view on how people who rape think".

"They shouldn't pass that over because we don't often hear that side. This was 
their chance to find out why they did it. It was an opportunity to try and 
unravel this mindset."

But now the verdict is out, she said she will be releasing an unedited version 
of the documentary - though the release date is to be decided. "This will be 
done with careful thought. I need time to pull it together but it will contain 
evidence that would have been potentially viewed as new evidence in court."

After 16 hours of intense interviews with Mukesh Singh, Udwin said she became 
privy to a whole host of new information.

"I heard particular evidence which I had to run by various lawyers in order to 
check whether it could change a judgment. They said it could, so I had to leave 
it out. It would have been irresponsible of me to reveal it. But I think it is 
important to look at how we have viewed this case. That's why I want to release 
the unedited version."

(source: Khaleej Times)






TAIWAN:

Taiwan child killer escapes death penalty


A Taiwanese man who decapitated a 3-year-old girl in public on a busy Taipei 
street escaped the death penalty Friday as he was sentenced to life in prison.

Wang Ching-yu, 34, had pleaded guilty to killing the child in a crime that 
shocked the generally peaceful island after overpowering her mother near a 
metro station.

He beheaded the girl with a kitchen knife as horrified bystanders tried to stop 
him.

Prosecutors had called the crime "extremely cold-blooded" and called for the 
death penalty.

But judge Tsai Shou-hsun told a Taipei district court Friday that he would 
instead be jailed for life as he had a "mental handicap."

Wearing black-framed glasses, a white T-shirt and track pants, his head shaved, 
Wang remained calm as he listened to the verdict, responding: "I understand."

The victim's family were not in court.

Taiwan resumed capital punishment in 2010 after a 5-year hiatus. Executions are 
reserved for serious crimes such as aggravated murder.

Some politicians and rights groups have called for its abolition, but various 
opinion surveys show majority support for the death penalty.

After the decapitation in March last year, hundreds of Taiwanese, many dressed 
in black and wearing stickers reading "Death penalty is necessary," called for 
Wang to be executed.

The killing came less than a year after the throat of an 8-year-old girl was 
slit in her school restroom in Taipei. It sparked widespread public anger and 
fresh debate about capital punishment.

Prosecutors in Wang's case said during court hearings that he should be put to 
death as a psychiatric report had found him to be mentally sound enough to be 
responsible for his actions.

But his defence had argued that Wang suffered from a mental disorder, so should 
be given a limited-term imprisonment or sent for treatment, local media said.

Wang had told the court that he hallucinated he was a Chinese emperor from 
Sichuan province and believed that killing the girl would bring him concubines 
to "carry on his family line," according to reports.

Wang was arrested at the scene of the crime.

Police said he had previously been arrested for drug-related crimes. He was 
attacked by an angry mob while in custody.

Prosecutors said blood tests showed he was not under the influence of drugs at 
the time of the crime.

(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)