[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 7



WALES:

60 years since last man hanged in Wales



On the night of Friday 15 November 1957, 24-year-old Vivian Teed broke into the 
sub-post office in Fforestfach, Swansea.

He did not expect to be disturbed, but was almost immediately accosted by the 
postmaster, 73-year-old William Williams.

After a struggle broke out, Teed attacked Mr Williams with a hammer he had 
brought along to force an entry, before fleeing empty-handed.

Both men would lose their lives - Mr Williams from 27 blows at Teed's hand, 
Teed 6 months later on 6 May 1958, as the last man to be hanged in Wales.

On the surface, the murder was an open and shut case, but it remains 
controversial and arguably hastened the abolition of capital punishment in the 
UK.

After the briefest of manhunts, the hammer - which had snapped with the 
ferocity of the attack - was traced to a works toolbox belonging to Teed's 
father.

Footprints in Mr Williams' blood were matched to Teed's shoes, and blood 
splatters were found on his trousers and coat.

Teed had even confessed his crime to a stranger in a local cafe.

Yet what everyone who had met Teed said he was not in his right mind.

At his trial on 17 and 18 March 1958, his barrister, F Elwyn Jones, argued: 
"The defence is not that this man did not kill the unfortunate postmaster. That 
tragic fact is true.

"The defence is that when the accused did it he was suffering from abnormality 
of the mind which impaired substantially his mental responsibility for what he 
did."

1 of 9 children, Teed had 2 previous convictions for violence, had been thrown 
out of the RAF, and had a history of psychopathic personality disorders.

The jury twice failed to reach a verdict, before eventually convicting Teed 
after receiving additional direction from the judge, who duly passed sentence 
of death.

An appeal the following month failed, and Home Secretary Rab Butler refused 
clemency, despite a 16-page petition.

Mark Davies, head of criminal law at Goldstone Solicitors in Swansea, believes 
it may well have been measures designed to make the death penalty harder to 
implement which actually did for Teed.

"Teed was the 1st person in the UK to be convicted under the 1957 Homicide Act, 
which narrowed capital murder to just 2 categories, 1 of which was 'in the 
course or furtherance of theft'.

"His case fitted so neatly into this, that I don't believe the jury gave due 
consideration to the Act's other new provision, the introduction of the notion 
of diminished responsibility into English law.

"Teed's might not have been a miscarriage of justice in the same way as Timothy 
Evans or Derek Bentley, but it fed into the growing unease over the morality of 
hanging."

According to author Geoff Brookes, who wrote about the case in his book 
"Swansea in the 1950s" and for his local history website, nowhere was that 
unease felt more acutely than in Swansea.

"It was a town torn. On the one hand, a pillar of the community known 
affectionately as Old Banky had been brutally killed, and on the other the man 
who was to hang for it wasn't in his right mind.

"A petition of 1,000 signatures was gathered around Swansea, but there was to 
be no clemency.

"On the morning of the execution, just a handful of people stood quietly 
outside Swansea Prison, a stark shift in public opinion from the first hanging 
there 100 years before, when baying crowds had rented space on top of carts to 
get a better view."

In researching his book, Mr Brookes came across a previously unseen note in the 
West Glamorgan Archives, from the chaplain of Swansea Prison, describing the 
chillingly cold details of that morning.

"The day before the equipment had been thoroughly tested by the governor and 
the engineer. Then on 6 May all staff had to be on duty by 06:45 BST.

"Breakfast to the condemned cell at 07:30, chaplain to attend at 08:00.

"The governor enters the condemned cell with the executioner at 08:58. The 
execution takes place at 09:00, with the medical officer's inspection of Teed 
at 09:02 and the burial at 12:05."

At the bottom of the order was a handwritten note addressed to the prison 
chaplain from the governor.

"As soon as executioner enters, stand up and move away from table in case there 
is a bit of a do," it said.

"When prisoner leaves the condemned cell for the execution chamber follow. If 
he wants you to say a prayer do so - if he wants you to accompany him do so.

"If not keep clear of those engaged in this work won't you?"

Hanging for murder was finally suspended in 1965 and abolished in 1969, (1973 
in Northern Ireland).

It remained on the statute books for some offences until 1998, but in 2004 the 
UK acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, 
which prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances.


(source: BBC News)








INDIA:

Kathua and After: Why the Death Penalty for Child Rape Will Not Deter 
Offenders----In India, the efficacy of deterrence in reducing crime is deeply 
doubtful, considering that the certainty of punishment itself is very low for a 
variety of socio-economic and procedural reasons.



Responding to public outrage over the horrific rape and murder of an 
eight-year-old girl in Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government 
cleared the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 2018, which was promulgated by 
the president on the April 21. The ordinance has, controversially, introduced 
the death penalty for rape of a girl below 12 years of age, while also 
increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for rape. It is expected that once 
parliament is in session, the ordinance will become a law.

Many have celebrated this short-term "aggressive" response, and in fact, the 
chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women, Swati Maliwal, even went on an 
indefinite hunger strike to demand the introduction of such a drastic 
punishment to "ensure safety" of the girl child. Unfortunately, it is far from 
clear whether the ordinance will achieve this goal. In fact, the ordinance is 
deeply troubling on many levels.

There is no doubt that child sexual abuse is a serious problem in India, and 
is, in fact, on the rise. Figures available with the National Crime Records 
Bureau (NCRB) reveal that reported incidents of child rape have witnessed a 
sharp spike of 82% from 2015 to 2016. The ordinance seems to place emphasis on 
the deterrent effect of introducing capital punishment in helping to reduce 
incidents of child rape, and in ensuring speedy justice for the victims. 
However, it is likely to have the opposite effect.

Indian law already provides for the death penalty as the maximum punishment in 
a case of murder, and for repeat rape offenders. Deterrent theories of 
sentencing are predicated on the rationality of offenders, i.e. they presume 
that the fear of possible death will deter a would-be offender from committing 
a serious crime. Assuming this is correct, the result of introducing the death 
penalty for child rape would be that the law now provides an incentive for the 
perpetrators to rape and then murder their victim - after all, it eliminates an 
incriminating and often solitary witness to the crime at no additional cost.

Moreover, in India, the efficacy of deterrence in reducing crime is deeply 
doubtful, considering that the certainty of punishment itself is very low for a 
variety of reasons. First, due to social stigma, deep-seated patriarchy and a 
long drawn and often humiliating investigation and trial process, there is 
under-reporting of incidents of rape and sexual assault.

The victim (often at the behest of her family) is simply unwilling to report 
such crimes and live through the public ordeal and possible reprisal that 
follows. This is particularly so, because 94.6% of rapes (as per the 2016 NCRB 
'Crime in India' data) are cases of acquaintance rape, i.e. where offender is 
known to the victim, either as a family member, or neighbour, co-worker etc. It 
is important to remember that these are only the percentages of the total 
38,947 reported cases, and probably underestimate the prevalence of 
acquaintance rape.

The introduction of death penalty for child rape will, in all likelihood, 
increase the hesitation of the victim to prosecute such cases, since the fear 
of the dire and irreversible consequence on the perpetrator may increase the 
pressure on the victim from her family to maintain her silence, or to turn 
hostile during trial.

Second, the process of investigation and trial for rape cases is also 
problematic in India, apart from being unduly delayed (the pendency rate for 
all child rape cases in courts was 89.6% in 2016). The investigation begins 
with the humiliation and insensitive questions often faced by the victim while 
getting a case registered in the police station, by officers with no training 
in dealing with victims. Even during trial, there is inadequate counseling, a 
lack of proper legal and psychological support, and a practice of both overt 
and covert victim blaming. All these factors contribute to victims turning 
hostile or refusing to prosecute further during the course of the trial, 
leading to low conviction rates, diluting any possible deterrence, which is 
relied upon by death penalty advocates so strongly.

Interestingly, even in the US, where the death penalty is constitutional, the 
Supreme Court in Kennedy vs Louisiana (2008) struck down a law that authorised 
death penalty for child rape for violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition 
against "cruel and unusual punishment", since, among other things, it eroded 
the distinction between child rape (where a victim did not die or death was not 
intended) and the severity and irrevocability of murder.

A false dichotomy

The other rationale, which is cited by those who support the death penalty, 
relies on the retributive theory of sentencing, where the punishment satisfies 
society's cry for justice. However, such a theory does not give adequate 
importance to the role of the state in pursuing such vengeance. The state 
itself risks becoming a hostage to public opinion in such a scenario, and 
ignores the importance free societies have given to the dignity and life of 
every individual.

After all, a retributive theory can very easily lead to a slippery slope where 
death penalty increasingly becomes the norm for a greater array of crimes and 
eventually threatens the core of a "rights culture" that is present in society. 
Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion in Kennedy vs Louisiana, rejected the 
retributive theory to justify death penalty, observing that "It is the last of 
this retribution that most often can contradict the laws' own ends.... When the 
law punishes by death, it risks its own descent into brutality transgressing 
the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint".

Additionally, it is important to remember that, often, a false dichotomy is 
created with the death penalty, on one hand, and acquittal on the other. 
Instead, the debate is at the margin, namely, whether death penalty is 
necessary over and above life imprisonment.

On its face, the ordinance seeks to provide for speedy dispensation of justice, 
by requiring that investigation in child rape cases be completed within two 
months (from the earlier three months) and appeals in rape cases be disposed of 
within six months. However, such quick fix solutions that merely set out 
timelines without improving the underlying judicial and investigative 
infrastructure remain mere paper remedies, and in fact, come at the cost of due 
process. There is high pendency amongst the Indian judiciary, which does not 
have the capacity to deal with the burgeoning caseload. By emphasising speed 
over quality, and setting artificial timelines, there is a worry that the 
quality of police investigation will suffer, and the rights of the accused will 
be compromised.

The points I have raised above are distinct from the philosophical/empirical 
concerns over continued retention of the death penalty in India in the first 
place. The Supreme Court of India has recognised that that the confirmation of 
the death sentence depends on the personal predilection of the appellate judges 
constituting the bench and its application is subjective and arbitrary. 
Simultaneously, empirical studies have shown the disparate impact of the death 
penalty on marginalised and vulnerable groups. Given these well-recognised 
problems with the application of the judicially evolved "rarest of rare" 
standard that justifies the use of death penalty in India, it is important to 
examine whether the 2018 ordinance will only exacerbate these problems.

Finally, it is important to talk about the procedural aspect of promulgating 
this ordinance, which was passed as a way to quell the public outrage over the 
spate of publicised incidents of rape, and as evidence of government "action". 
There was no parliamentary deliberation or public discussion about the need for 
such a punishment, or whether the introduction of capital punishment in the 
statute books leads to a reduction of crime, or whether the death penalty will 
serve a penal purpose that cannot already be served by punishments such as life 
imprisonment.

This is unlike the debate generated in 2012, when the gruesome gangrape and 
murder of a young woman in Delhi gave rise to similar demands for the 
introduction of the death penalty. In response, the government set up a 
committee of experts, headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to suggest 
amendments to the criminal law. After extensive consultations and 
deliberations, keeping in view the global movement towards abolition of the 
death penalty and India's consequent human rights obligations, the committee 
concluded that introducing the death penalty in cases of rape would be a 
regressive step in the field of sentencing. Instead, it recommended changes in 
the definition of rape and sexual assault, enhanced sentences, guidelines for 
medical examination of sexual assault survivors, and police reforms. Based on 
these suggestions, the government introduced various other amendments to the 
criminal laws of the land and did not bring in the death penalty.

None of this is to discount the seriousness of rape as a crime. What needs to 
be done, however, is not a short-term, headline-grabbing fix of amending the 
law, but rather, to engage in finding a long-term solution that reforms the 
investigative and judicial process and changes cultural and social norms that 
often justify rape culture. Only then will we have truly saved our children.

(source: Vrinda Bhandari is a Delhi-based lawyer; thewire.in)

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

2 Nirbhaya killers seek mercy, SC reserves verdict



2 of the 4 Nirbhaya killers, who are facing death sentence in the December 2012 
gangrape incident, pleaded for mercy and urged the Supreme Court to commute 
their capital punishment into one of life imprisonment.

Another accused in the case, Ram Singh, died in Tihar Jail and a convicted 
juvenile was released from the reformation home after serving a 3-year term as 
per the Juvenile Justice Act.

Last year in May, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Delhi High 
Court to award the death penalty to the 4 accused in the brutal gangrape and 
murder of a 23-year-old medical student in New Delhi. The counsel for the 
remaining 3 convicts also sought re-examination of the judgment.

The bench, which also comprised justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, summed 
up the submissions advanced by the defence counsel and said, "death penalty is 
in the statute book".

The paramedical student was gangraped on the intervening night of 16-17 
December 2012, inside a moving bus in South Delhi by a gang of 6 persons and 
severely assaulted before being thrown out on the road naked. The counsel 
appearing for Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) 
objected to the arguments of Sharma's counsel and said: "Not even a single 
point raised by the petitioner has not been dealt with by the court".

The case had provoked public anger and widespread protests as the victim 
eventually succumbed to her injuries. Singh referred to recent murder case of a 
minor school boy and said the Haryana police had framed the bus driver in it 
and he only survived due to the scientific probe conducted by the CBI.

Advocate A P Singh, counsel for Vinay and Pawan, argued that they were "not 
habitual offenders and have no criminal records, so the court must allow them 
to be reformed".

He also said that 2 of the convicts were not juveniles and the trial court 
confirmed this. The 4th convict Akshay has not filed a review petition yet. 
Challenging the Supreme Court's verdict, Mukesh had a year ago filed a review 
petition alleging that the court had not properly examined crucial evidence in 
the case.

The Supreme Court had on May 5 previous year awarded death sentence to 4 
convicts in the case saying that the brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of 
the crime shook the conscience of humanity and they deserved the extreme 
punishment.

(source: newburghgazette.com)

BOTSWANA:

Masisi comes face to face with 1st clemency appeal



Death row inmate Uyapo Poloko's lawyers are currently putting a last ditch 
attempt to save their client as his fate now lies in the hands of President 
Mokgweetsi Masisi who can either grant him clemency or send him to the gallows.

Poloko was sentenced to death 3 years ago after being found guilty of 
strangling an Asian woman to death and attempting to murder the woman's 
husband. Poloko's lawyer Tshekiso Thekiso of Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Legal 
Practice confirmed that they have applied for clemency and are currently 
seeking "certain information from the President". He could not be drawn into 
discussing details of the clemency application for his client.

This will be Masisi's 1st death penalty assignment-an issue that attracts 
domestic and international attention. According to the Constitution of 
Botswana, upon receiving application for clemency, the President is compelled 
to convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy. The 
committee comprises of the Vice-President or a Minister appointed by the 
President, the Attorney-General and a medical practitioner registered in 
Botswana.

Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) Carter Morupisi did not confirm 
whether an application from Poloko's lawyers reached President Masisi s office. 
He rather referred this publication to Attorney General Abram Keetshabe, a 
member of the Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy as when the Committee 
is called to meet by the President. Keetshabe did not divulge any information 
regarding Poloko's clemency or whether there has been a Committee held for 
Poloko's clemency yet, rather reminding that "only the president can take a 
decision to pardon a death row inmate."

In his last discussions on death penalty, local lawyer and a death penalty 
abolitionist Martin Dingake maintained that the exercise of clemency is vague, 
unjust and non-transparent-bound to prejudice the death-row inmates at the 
expense of the so called exclusive presidential discretion. Dingake who 
represented a high profile death-row inmate Patrick 'Raselepe' Gabaakanye in 
2016 was not given response for his clemency application and communication 
after his client was hanged.

Masisi's predecessor Ian Khama left office a month after allowing the hanging 
of Joseph Tselayarona for the murder of his lover, Ngwanyanaotsile Keikanne and 
her 3-year-old son, Miguel Keikanne back in 2010. Before handing the baton to 
Masisi on April 1 this year, Khama had rejected pleas for clemency from 
Tselayarona. Days before Tselayarona's execution Khama made remarks at one of 
his farewell meetings in Palapye that he supports death penalty and would turn 
a deaf ear or blind eye to those who speak for murderers at the expense of the 
victims' justice.

Before leaving office, Khama left Masisi with several death-row inmates most of 
which failed to convince the Court of Appeal to overrule their sentences. 
Former Chief Justice Maruping Dibotelo last year December made an appointment 
for Matshidiso Boikanyo and Moabi Mabiletsa with the hangman for killing cab 
driver Vincent Mopipi by stabbing him 44 times in 2013. Also in December the 
Lobatse High Court sentenced Tshiamo Kgalalelo and Mmika Mpe to death for the 
murder of their white employer Reinette Vorster at Gantsi farms. Mooketsi 
Kgosibodiba is also on death-row for the murder of Benjamin Makobela back in 
2012 at Makobo village.

In the history of death penalty in Botswana, no president has ever granted a 
death-row inmate clemency and Masisi is yet to continue the precedence set by 
his predecessors or reverse history. Khama has seen 8 executions in his reign. 
His predecessor Festus Mogae allowed the execution of 7 people. During his 
term, Ketumile Masire saw 15 people going to the gallows while the founding 
president and Ian's father Seretse Khama approved the execution of 17 death row 
prisoners during his term.

(source: weekendpost.co.bw)








IRAN----execution

Prisoner Hanged in Babol Prison



A prisoner was executed at Babol Prison on murder charges.

According to Rokna news agency, on the morning of Saturday, May 5, a prisoner 
was hanged at Babol Prison on murder charges.

The prisoner, identified as A. F., 27, committed murder over a financial 
dispute in 2015.

According to the state-run news agency, Javan, quoting Younes Hosseini Alemi, 
the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor of Mazandaran, "The defendant, A.F., 
son of Shidollah, who was sentenced to death on the charge of murdering J. A., 
was hanged at Babol Prison in the presence of the plaintiffs."

According to Iran Human Rights annual report on the death penalty, 240 of the 
517 execution sentences in 2017 were implemented due to murder charges. There 
is a lack of a classification of murder by degree in Iran which results in 
issuing a death sentence for any kind of murder regardless of intensity and 
intent.

(source: Iran Human Rights)








BAHRAIN:

Request to reconsider capital punishment ruling presented



Minister of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments, Shaikh Khalid bin Ali Al 
Khalifa, said an application to reconsider death sentences in a bombing case 
would be presented to the Court of Cassation.

"Following the review of the proposal made by the Special Investigations Unit 
(SIU), as referred by the Attorney General, to reconsider death sentences in 
the murder of a police officer and attempted murder of other officers in a 
terrorist bombing, a decision was made to apply to the President of the Court 
of Cassation to reconsider the death sentences. The decision is subject to the 
privileges granted under the Court of Cassation Law that allow the Minister of 
Justice to request a reconsideration of sentences under certain circumstances," 
the minister said.

Shaikh Khalid pointed out that "such an application is made under the authority 
vested in the Minister of Justice to ensure that justice is served after 
exhausting all legal avenues to the maximum extent possible in order to uncover 
the truth, subject to Court of Cassation Law."

"The Court of Cassation has absolute discretion, based on the investigations 
carried out by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and the new documents filed 
in respect of evidence in the case against the convicts," he said.

The minister underscored Bahrain's deep commitment to safeguarding the legal 
rights guaranteed by its legislature to ensure that justice is served to the 
fullest extent of the law.

The Ministry of Interior Ombudsman had reviewed the case and notified the SIU 
of their findings. The SIU had in turn investigated the case and proposed a 
reconsideration of the sentences against the 2 convicts in light of uncovering 
new documents which were not presented to the Court that issued the sentences.

(source: Bahrain News Agency)