[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

April 23



INDONESIA:

'Homesick' Indonesian maid faces death penalty for murdering employer



A month after starting work for a family in Telok Kurau, an Indonesian maid 
became so homesick and filled with longing for her lover in Hong Kong, that she 
hatched a "ruthless plan" to kill her employer.

Daryati, 26, wanted to get her passport that was kept in a safe and to steal 
money from a locked drawer so that she can return home, prosecutors told the 
High Court on Tuesday (April 23) on the 1st day of her murder trial.

She is facing the death penalty for stabbing and slashing Madam Seow Kim Choo 
on June 7, 2016, leaving the 59-year-old woman with 98 knife wounds, most of 
which were on her head and neck.

Daryati is the 1st foreign domestic worker to be tried for murder since 
Filipina Flor Contemplacion was hanged in 1995 for murdering a fellow maid and 
her 4-year-old charge.

In opening its case against Daryati, the prosecution cited her own words that 
she had written in her diary.

The translated entry read: "I must carry out this plan quickly. I have to be 
brave even though life is at stake. I am ready to face all risks/consequences, 
whatever the risk, I must be ready to accept it. I hope that this plan succeed 
and run smoothly.

"My employer's family is my target DEATH!!!"

Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Kok Weng said these chilling words were in effect 
an "ex-ante" (a Latin phrase meaning "before the event") confession of the 
"brutal and cold-blooded" killing which she would eventually perpetrate.

He said the prosecution will rely on Daryati's police statements, in which she 
confessed to, among other things, slitting Madam Seow's neck and stabbing her 
multiple times.

Madam Seow lived in the 3-storey house with her husband, 2 adult sons, 
daughter-in-law and 2 grandchildren.

Daryati started working for the family on April 13, 2016.

Her passport was kept in a safe in the master bedroom and only Madam Seow and 
her husband, Mr Ong Thiam Soon, then 57, had the keys.

Madam Seow also held the keys to a drawer on the 1st floor, where cash was 
kept.

The DPP said Daryati devised a plan to kill Madam Seow as early as May 12 so 
that she can retrieve her passport, steal money and return to Indonesia.

Daryati roped in the 2nd maid in the household to help, but did not say that 
the plan involved murder.

She told the other Indonesian, Ms Don Hayati, 27, to distract Mr Ong and then 
turn off the closed circuit TV and electricity supply, so that they can steal 
money and escape while he was trying to restart the power.

She also told Ms Hayati to alert her when Madam Seow's brother came to the 
house, having observed that he would bring large amounts of cash whenever he 
visited.

In her diary on June 2, Daryati drew a map of the house, plotting the path she 
would take to get her passport and her escape route.

In the days before she stabbed Madam Seow, whom she later described to police 
as "a very nice person", Daryati hid weapons on the 2nd floor of the 3-storey 
house, the DPP told the court.

She hid a Kukri knife at the walk-in wardrobe of the master bedroom, a hammer 
in a study table on the 2nd floor, and a short knife in a basket under the sink 
of the master bedroom toilet, said the DPP.

The knives were intended to be used to attack Madam Seow and the hammer to hit 
daughter-in-law Rowena Yeo if she came down from the 3rd floor, said the DPP.

On June 7, Daryati carried out the plan after she verified that Madam Seow's 
brother came by and was counting cash on the 1st floor.

She made her move only after Madam Yeo, then 24, and her 2 children had gone up 
to the 3rd floor, and after Madam Seow's brother and 2 sons had left the house, 
said the DPP.

Hiding a knife in her clothing, Daryati went up to the master bedroom with a 
pair of trousers she had ironed for Madam Seow.

On her way up, she said "jaga bawah", or guard downstairs, to Ms Hayati, who 
has not been charged over her involvement.

After handing Madam Seow the trousers, Daryati whipped out the knife and 
demanded the return of her passport.

When Madam Seow shouted, Daryati dragged her employer to the toilet, closed the 
door and repeatedly slashed and stabbed her neck, head and face until the older 
woman collapsed on the floor.

To ensure Madam Seow was dead, Daryati retrieved the short knife she had hidden 
under the sink, squatted down and repeatedly stabbed her employer in the neck 
until she was motionless, said the DPP.

"The accused had clearly intended to cause the death of the deceased by her 
vicious attack," said the DPP.

By this time, Mr Ong had entered the master bedroom and was calling out for his 
wife.

As there was no response, he became worried and used a screwdriver to open the 
toilet door.

When the door opened, Daryati attacked Mr Ong by stabbing his neck. He managed 
to disarm her but when he went to check on Madam Seow, Daryati retrieved the 
knife and stabbed him on the neck a 2nd time.

Mr Ong eventually restrained Daryati and tied her hands with cable ties. He 
then took her out to the main gate, where three passers-by helped watch over 
her while he checked on Madam Seow.

Madam Yeo called for an ambulance at about 8.50pm. Paramedics pronounced Madam 
Seow dead at about 9.05pm.

The court heard that after Madam Seow’s sons returned home, younger son Andrew, 
then 34, was so agitated that he punched Daryati and had to be restrained by 
police, while older son Wei Yang, then 35, shook his mother’s body and shouted 
at her to wake up.

An autopsy report stated that she died from multiple incised and stab wounds to 
the head and neck.

A psychiatric report said Daryati was suffering from adjustment disorder at the 
time but this did not amount to a major mental disorder that would diminish her 
responsibility for her actions.

Daryati, who is defended by Mr Mohd Muzammil Mohd, also faces a second charge 
for the attempted murder of Mr Ong, but it has been stood down for now.

Mr Muzammil told reporters that he will be challenging the admissibility of her 
police statements, and calling a forensic pathologist from Indonesia and a 
local psychiatrist as expert witnesses.

The trial resumes on Aug 13.

(source: straitstimes.com)

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

3 Indonesian drug traffickers nabbed in Bintulu



Police have detained 3 Indonesian men active in trafficking drugs here since 
the end of last year in a raid on an unnumbered house in Jalan Abang Galau 
Sunday.

Sarawak Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department (NCID) head Supt Sahar 
Abdul Latif said during the raid at about 9.00 pm, police also seized 531.95 
grammes of syabu worth RM79,792.50 from the three unemployed men, aged between 
21 and 34 years.

“Early screening found all three suspects testing positive for the drugs 
amphetamine and methamphetamine,” he said in a statement Monday.

The syabu was found by the NCID team from the Sarawak Contingent Headquarters, 
which carried out the raid, stored in cigarette boxes, watch boxes and plastic 
bags.

“The suspects are being investigated under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs 
Act 1952 which carries the death penalty if convicted and now they have been 
remanded 14 days under section 6 (1) (c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63,” he 
said.

(source: The Borneo Post)








PAKISTAN:

Supreme Court acquits murder convict over lack of evidence



The Supreme Court on Monday acquitted a life sentence convict, giving him 
benefit of doubt.

The trial court had awarded capital punishment to Shahid Hamid over alleged 
murder of Muhammad Usman in a locality of Factory Area Police Station 
Sheikhupura in 2009. The Lahore High Court had converted the death penalty into 
life imprisonment.

A 3-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan 
Khosa, heard the case against the decision of Lahore High Court.

During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice Asif Saeed remarked that Allah 
Almighty had ordained the principle to record witness and will order to present 
witnesses on Day of Judgment despite having infinite knowledge.

He said all human organs - eyes, ears & mouth etc - will give testimony 
regarding human actions and deeds on that Day.

He observed that there was a common mistake in all cases that accused were real 
but witnesses were fake.

In every case, the apex court had to declare that witnesses were not 
acceptable, he added.

"We are trying to improve the overall system," he remarked.

He observed that a witness in the case - Ghazanfar Patwari - remained appointed 
in Lahore for the last 20 years.

He remarked that Patwaris have the record of towns/cities and asked what would 
happen to the system, if a Patwari recorded false testimony.

He asked how a person appointed in Lahore, could be a witness of a murder case 
in Sheikhupura.

He observed that prosecution failed to submit evidence beyond doubt. Later, the 
court acquitted the accused over lack of evidence.

The Chief Justice asked what should be done with the Patwarias the accused had 
been acquitted.

The counsel pleaded the court to forgive Ghazanfar Patwari.

(source: urdupoint.com)

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

The emotional element in death penatly debate



A UK-based non-government organization has recently submitted its report on 
death penalty to the minister for law and justice. The report mentions that in 
recent years the Supreme Court of Pakistan has overturned death penalty in 78 
per cent of the cases. The report reveals that the apex court has frequently 
cited unreliable testimonies, insufficient evidence, and lack of motive as 
primary reasons for overturning the death penalty. The court has also shown 
concern with regard to delay in registration of FIRs, planted recoveries from 
crime scene and unnecessary delays in submission of challan.

In 2018, the European Commission report on Pakistan noted that the death 
penalty remained a grave concern.

There is a need to question the practice of death penalty on emotional grounds 
because capital punishment is more an emotional issue in the country than a 
legal one. The campaign for abolition of death penalty had attained momentum 
after World War II as the world moved in the direction of abolition of the 
punishment for being inhuman and barbaric. The world, especially the European 
nations, have moved towards rehabilitation and non-penal social engineering 
instead of punitive schemes.

After the moratorium on death penalty penalty was lifted in 2014 following the 
Peshawar massacre, several one-time offenders and those convicted of killing 
security agencies’ personnel were sent to gallows. It was argued that the death 
penalty was a necessary deterrent in view of rampant violence and lawlessness

Use of legal arguments against death penalty will elicit strong opposition in 
the country. Some provisions of criminal law in Pakistan have been derived from 
Islamic principles and norms defined long ago.

The complainants in murder cases typically argue in emotional terms calling for 
an eye for an eye. It has been observed that in Pakistan the use of death 
penalty has never been debated on emotional grounds. Instead, the abolitionists 
have generally relied on legal arguments to oppose the use of death penalty.

A voice for abolition or suspension of death penalty in Pakistan and Middle 
East may be raised on philosophical grounds first.

After the moratorium on death penalty penalty was lifted in 2014 following the 
Peshawar massacre, several 1-time offenders and those convicted of killing 
security agencies’s personnel were sent to gallows. It was argued that the 
death penalty was a necessary deterrent in view of rampant violence and 
lawlessness in the country. It has been argued that the moratorium placed on 
death penalty in 2008 was meant to get GST+ status from the European Union. 
While the government’s motive may have been humanistic it had never challenged 
death penalty on philosophical grounds.

It is high time the use of death penalty and its legality are considered and 
debated on philosophical grounds. The emotional elements in the arguments 
should therefore be addressed first. The criminal justice system does not have 
to be about punishing people for their crimes, it can also be rehabilitative.

One wishes to point out also that the death penalty applies mostly to the 
poorest of the poor, vulnerable juveniles, and minorities. Several children in 
Iran have been condemned to death. In Pakistan, too, a number of juveniles have 
been condemned and are currently facing life imprisonment. It can be shown that 
death penalty serves no purpose.

(source: Daily Times)








INDIA:

Remission not a matter of right, subject to State Policy: Supreme Court



The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan 
Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, which deals with remission of 
convicts.

The batch of appeals filed by various litigants challenged the constitutional 
validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prison Rules. The convicts in the 
case were sentenced to life imprisonment, and had all served a minimum 
jail-term of 14 years. However, their cases were not placed before the State 
Advisory Board for shortening their sentences.

Rule under challenge

The Rule is applicable to persons convicted and awarded life imprisonment for:

Offences for which one of the prescribed punishments is the death penalty or;

Offences for which death penalty has been commuted to a life term under Section 
433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Such a person’s application for shortening of the sentence or for premature 
release can be considered only after she has served a period of 14 years in 
prison. This period of 14 years includes the time spent in detention during the 
investigation, trial, etc, but excludes remission. Another requirement for the 
application to be considered is that the convict shall have earned a minimum 
period of four years in remission.

This Rule was struck down by the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that it was 
not presented before the State Legislature prior to promulgation. It was also 
held that the provision was manifestly contrary to Section 433 of the CrPC, 
which restricts the power of the state government to commute the sentence of a 
convict. The State of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court challenging the 
High Court’s decision.

Arguments before the Supreme Court

Senior Counsel Manish Singhvi, arguing for the appellant, submitted that the 
High Court erred in its verdict, given that mandatory placing of the Rules 
before the Legislature was not a pre-condition. The provision for placing the 
Rules before the Legislature was directory and not mandatory in nature, and 
thus, the absence of this exercise does not render the Rule invalid, it was 
argued.

As regards the Rule being contrary to Section 433, it was contended that 
remission of the sentence after serving 14 years in prison was not a matter of 
right. The state government could put limitations on the same, as remission was 
a matter of state policy.

Counsel for the respondents argued that the state policy on remission of 
sentence was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rule 
would make it virtually impossible for a convict to be considered for remission 
and would be contrary to Section 433-A of the CrPC to the extent that it 
restricts consideration for remission after 14 years.

The Verdict

The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha held that the language of the 
legislation made it clear that the requirement of placing the Rules before the 
Legislature for promulgation was directive in nature, not mandatory.

On the question of remission as a matter of state policy, the Court held,

“Manifestly remission not being a matter of right, much less upon completion of 
14 years of custody, but subject to rules framed in that regard, including 
complete denial of the same in specified circumstances, as a matter of State 
policy, nothing prevents the State from imposing restrictions in the manner 
done by Rule 8(2)(i) to consider claims for remission.”

The Court thus held that the High Court erred in striking down the Rule on both 
grounds, and therefore allowed the appeals.

(source: barandbench.com)

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

Delhi HC defers hearing appeal filed by anti-Sikh riots convicts to May 20



The Delhi High court on Monday deferred hearing in an appeal case filed by 
anti-Sikh riots convicts Naresh Sehrawat and Yashpal Singh, to May 20.

In November last year, the Delhi court had pronounced death penalty to Yashpal 
Singh and life imprisonment to Naresh Sehrawat for killing 2 Sikhs during the 
1984 anti-Sikh riots. The court had also slapped Rs 35 lakh fine on each of 
them.

Sehrawat and Singh were held guilty of murdering of 2 Sikhs in South Delhi's 
Mahipalpur area during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

Both the accused were booked under Sections 452 (House-trespass after 
preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 302 (murder), 307 
(attempt to murder), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or 
means), 395 (Punishment for dacoity), 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive 
substance with intent to destroy) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal 
Code (IPC).

As per official data, around 2,800 Sikhs were killed across India, including 
2,100 in Delhi, during the clashes which broke out after the assassination of 
then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards.

(source: business-standard.com)








THAILAND:

Thai death penalty threat over floating home sparks 'seasteading' debate



The threat of death sentences against a couple who set up an offshore home near 
a Thai island, has sparked a debate on the growing “seasteading” movement and 
the right to create floating settlements to cope with the effects of climate 
change.

Thailand’s navy on Monday towed to shore a floating cabin which had been set on 
top of a spar 14 nautical miles off Phuket.

Authorities said the structure was within the country’s 200-mile exclusive 
economic zone, and charged U.S. citizen Chad Elwartowski and his Thai 
girlfriend with violating Thai sovereignty, punishable by death penalty or life 
in prison.

The whereabouts of the couple are unknown.

Ocean Builders, which funded and built the cabin, said on its website the 
structure was in international waters.

Advocates of seasteading say floating homes and villages are more sustainable 
than land reclamation, and that they can boost tourism, check rising land 
prices, and provide a solution to coastal cities at risk of flooding and rising 
sea levels.

“Most crowded cities are located on coastlines. There is tremendous 
availability of space in the ocean nearby, which can help ease congestion and 
lower costs of land acquisition,” Nicolas Germineau, co-founder of start-up 
Blue Frontiers, said on Tuesday.

Like most technologies, it will become more efficient and have wider 
applications over time, said Germineau, whose Singapore-based firm builds 
seasteads and floating islands.

“It can already help with sea-level rise, governance innovation, foreign 
investment, high land and home prices, increased tourism, and economic 
diversification,” he said.

With 90 % of the world’s largest cities vulnerable to flooding as glaciers melt 
and sea levels rise on a warming planet, a United Nations-backed partnership 
earlier this month said it will study the prospect of floating cities.

Modular platforms anchored to the sea floor can be connected in a ring to house 
communities atop the oceans, it said.

Before that commitment, the French Polynesian government in 2017 signed an 
agreement with Blue Frontiers to build a floating village.

Some community members have opposed the project on environmental grounds and 
fears that it will only benefit a wealthy few.

These are valid concerns for all countries considering the concept, said Peter 
Newman, a professor at the Curtin University’s Sustainability Policy Institute 
in Australia.

“Seasteading is entirely elitist. It’s a wealthy person’s plaything, and has 
nothing to do with solving the problems of climate change,” he told the Thomson 
Reuters Foundation.

“If they want to use off-shore technology, they should start fixing low-lying 
cities like Bangkok and old cities like London or New York built on river 
mouths. Escaping and leaving cities will not work for long,” he said.

The U.N. partnership said it is exploring sea-borne homes for the neediest, as 
well.

Meanwhile, the Seasteading Institute, a U.S.-based non-profit, urged compassion 
from Thai authorities, even though it was not involved in the project.

Undeterred by the actions of Thai authorities, Ocean Builders said it would 
continue to build seasteads.

“We already have been contacted by several countries that see the potential of 
the innovation, the tourism and economic growth that their nation will receive 
once they have a wealth of new commerce and tourism off of their coast,” it 
said on its website.

(source: Reuters)

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

US bitcoin trader and girlfriend could face death penalty over Thai 'seastead'



An American bitcoin trader and his girlfriend could face the death penalty 
after they were accused of threatening Thailand's sovereignty by building and 
living in a "sea home" off the coast of Phuket.

Chad Elwartowski and his partner Nadia Supranee Thepdet have fled their home, 
built atop a platform around 12 miles off the coast of Phuket, and gone into 
hiding after authorities revoked the American's visa.

He had promoted "seasteads" on social media and claimed his home did not fall 
under the sovereignty of any country, which Thai authorities have said is 
untrue. He repeated the claim on Thursday, writing the home is "outside of 
Thailand territorial waters."

The couple could face life imprisonment or the death penalty under the 
country's Immigration Act, but authorities told CNN they are unaware if the 
pair are still in the country or its waters.

"Nadia and I are still safe," Elwartowski wrote on Facebook on Tuesday, adding 
he was unsure whether their home had been destroyed. "Whether it is still there 
or not does not matter much to me. I'm more concerned about Nadia being driven 
from her home country and her family. Her son is worried. I hope they can be 
reunited some day soon."

"It was my home," Elwartowski added. In an earlier post, he said the pair did 
not design or construct the home but worked with the company that did.

"As long as Nadia and I are able to live through this that is all that matters 
to us right now. We just want to live," he wrote.

Thailand's navy has said the pair are threatening the country's sovereignty. 
"By claiming they own a floating house and using social media tried to sell 
this kind of house, also they claimed that their house is not under any 
country's sovereignty, which is not true. And this could cause other people to 
misunderstand and it is threatening our national security," said Colonel 
Kataporn Kumthieng, the chief of Phuket's Immigration office.

He described the case as "urgent."

The Thai Navy had previously posted a video of the home on Facebook, writing 
that "the navy is required to resolve the problem."

Elwartowski had taken part in videos and podcasts promoting the use of 
"seasteads," frequently mentioning how he was unaffected by policy decisions 
and taxation laws set by governments.

The "seasteading" movement, which began in earnest in 2008 in California with 
the financial backing of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, has been 
likened to the phenomenon of micronations for its vision of establishing 
sovereign communities outside the control of existing states.

Ocean Builders, the company behind Elwartowski's seastead, said in a statement 
on its website that it had constructed the home, the 1st in what it hoped would 
be an opening round of 20 units. The couple were "volunteers excited about the 
prospect of living free", it added.

Insisting the 6-meter platform was 13 nautical miles from Thailand and in 
international waters, the company accused the Thai authorities of acting as 
"judge jury and executioner of the historic very 1st seastead." It hoped to 
resolve the issue "diplomatically," it said.

The Seasteading Institute, the organization backed by Thiel, is currently in 
negotiations with the government of French Polynesia to build a floating city 
in a semi-autonomous "seazone" within its territorial waters.

(source: CNN)

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

Politics Harsh new penalties for forced labour, abuse of employees



The National Legislative Assembly has approved harsher punishments for 
employer, ranging from a maximum 400,000 baht fine to the death penalty, for 
use of forced labour, abuse or torture leading to a worker's death.

The amendments to the Anti-human Trafficking Act were passed by 117 votes to 0, 
with 4 absentions, NLA vice-president Surachai Lienboonlertchai said on 
Tuesday.

The amendment added forced labour to the list of liable offences. This includes 
crewmen whose documents are seized by boat skippers and they are forced to work 
like slaves, and workers whose employers seize their documents and pay them 
below the minimum wage.

The draft amendments set harsher penalities for employers found to have forced, 
abused or tortured workers. Abuse and torture of workers is liable to a fine of 
50,000-400,000 baht, and/or jail term of 6 months to 4 years.

Abuse or torture leading to severe injury or serious illness is liable to a 
jail term of 8-20 years or life imprisonment. If the action leads to the death 
of the employee, the employer would face life imprisonment or the death 
sentence.

(source: Bangkok Post)