[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 22



SINGAPORE:

Death penalty for Malaysian drug trafficker----27-year-old found guilty of 
entering S'pore with 22.24g of pure form of heroin in armrest console of car


A 27-year-old Malaysian who had earlier been found guilty of bringing into 
Singapore 22.24g of diamorphine, the pure form of heroin, was yesterday 
sentenced to death.

Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan was arrested in the early morning of April 12, 2012, 
at the Woodlands Checkpoint after immigration officers found 2 bundles wrapped 
with black masking tape - later found to contain the diamorphine - in the 
centre armrest console of the car he was driving into Singapore.

Prabagaran, who had said he was unaware that the 2 bundles were in his car, 
claimed trial on a charge of importing heroin of more than 15g, which carries 
the death penalty.

He was convicted in the High Court on July 22.

Court documents said Prabagaran had borrowed the car from a friend to enter 
Singapore on that day in April because he could not use his motorcycle. He had 
been behind in paying his monthly instalment and he was afraid that the 
motorcycle shop in Malaysia would repossess the vehicle.

Prabagaran had also told another friend that he had to take the car to 
Singapore early in the day - even though he was due to start his shift at a 
petrol pump station here only at 3pm - because he needed to return his work 
permit and gate pass to a former employer.

During the trial, the prosecution had argued that Prabagaran was an untruthful 
witness and that his testimony was "unconvincing, riddled with inconsistencies 
and cannot be believed".

"If the accused (Prabagaran) had truly intended to return his work permit and 
the gate pass to his former employer, he has not offered any satisfactory 
explanation why he had to do so several hours before his work shift began," 
said the prosecution.

Prabagaran's defence lawyer, Mr N Kanagavijayan, told the court that his client 
would be filing an appeal against the conviction.

(source: todayonline.com)






BANGLADESH:

No presidential clemency for war crimes convicts


Capital punishment is a debated issue worldwide, and the arguments on both 
sides are equally strong. The proponents argue that the utter and deliberate 
denial of life and opportunity to others forfeits one's own claim to continued 
membership in the community. The preciousness of life in a community must be so 
highly honoured that those who do not honour the life of others make null and 
void their own right to membership in the community.

On the other hand, even in societies where the judiciary can rightfully boast 
of being the finest organ of the state and the members of the community possess 
unflinching trust in its deliberations, the opponents of capital punishment 
argue that the denial of right of life is irrevocable, and the errors of 
justice cannot be rectified. If an innocent person is hanged, the judge and the 
whole legal machinery involved are thereby made privy to the very crime they 
seek to punish. Their opposition to capital punishment in no way reflects any 
leniency towards the perpetrators of the crimes.

In addition to the above assertions, both in favour of and against capital 
punishment, one has to perceive the socio-political aspect of the society to 
make an absolute standing on the issue. In EU, only Latvia still maintains 
capital punishment for crimes during war. In most countries in the Western 
hemisphere, with US being the notable exception, capital punishment has been 
abolished.

In the recent Supreme Court judgment on Delawar Hossain Sayedee, the death 
sentence was commuted to imprisonment until death. In addition to millions, the 
verdict left the law minister and the attorney general unhappy. It did not 
satisfy the defence or the convict's family either. Law Minister Anisul Huq, 
although utterly unhappy, said he was respectful of all apex court verdicts. 
Asked whether Sayedee could be released if a political changeover took place, 
he said that if people remained vigilant about the war criminals trial, no 
government would be able to set him free.

The defence, however, view the judgment differently. Senior defence lawyer 
Khandaker Mahbub Hossain claimed that justice had not been done to Sayedee. In 
case of life imprisonment, a convict has to serve 20 years in jail, but 
according to the SC judgment Sayedee will have to serve in jail until death, 
said Khandaker Mahbub. "We are aggrieved," he said, adding that the defence 
would seek a review of the judgment after receiving its full text.

War crimes trial campaigners were angry and frustrated after the Supreme Court 
commuted the death sentence of Sayedee. They said the verdict had failed to 
live up to people's expectations. War crimes researcher M.A. Hasan said: "We 
have to show respect to the judgment of the Supreme Court. But people have 
their own perception about issues and accordingly they expected a certain 
verdict," he said, adding that the verdict would create anger and sadness. In 
fact, this frustration has been echoed in unison by the trial campaigners from 
Cape Town to Canada. They are even angry to the point of going overboard with 
the hypothesis of collusion between the executive and judicial branches of the 
state, without the realising that although they have every right to accuse the 
executive branch, for right or wrong, they must not cast aspersion on the 
sanctity of the apex division of our judiciary. We must not forget that this is 
the same appellate division that overturned the verdict of life imprisonment 
awarded by the special tribunal to Quader Mollah in favour of death penalty.

In fact, in societies run by rule of law, imprisonment until death would be an 
extreme punishment awarded to any criminal. However, one has to take into 
cognisance the fact that it is only possible in Bangladesh that a convicted 
cold blooded murderer of seven students at Dhaka University campus was freed 
from life imprisonment by the 1st military ruler of Bangladesh when he was 
running for president to obtain his (convict's) father's support in the 
election. Over the years, convicted killers got presidential clemency and their 
death sentences were commuted to acquittal, not even to life imprisonment. Does 
this type of socio-political scenario exist in any country? And that's what is 
worrying the people about the Sayedee verdict.

In fact, no amount of 'vigilance by the people,' as indicated by the law 
minister, would be able to prevent the president of the Republic from 
exercising his constitutional power under Article 49 of the constitution that 
stipulates: "The President shall have power to grant pardons, reprieves and 
respites and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, 
tribunal or other authority." In pursuant to article 48(3) where, "In the 
exercise of all his functions, save only that of appointing the Prime Minister 
pursuant to Clause (3) of Article 56 and the Chief Justice pursuant to Clause 
(1) of Article 95, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the 
Prime Minister." The presidential clemency ultimately rests with the executive 
authority of the government of the day. And that's what is worrying and 
frustrating the war crimes trials campaigners. To close that avenue, it would 
be only incumbent on the current government to bring forward a simple but 
categorical amendment to Article 49 by providing an exceptional clause that 
could add, "excepting the sentence passed by the International Crimes Tribunal 
as amended or approved by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court."

Expressing her disappointment over the Supreme Court verdict against Sayedee, 
the prime minister said none had expected such a judgment. "People might have 
been happy if Sayedee's death sentence was upheld. The judgment was not 
expected as this person had committed so many crimes," she said, adding that as 
the judiciary was independent, she had nothing more to say about the judgment. 
As the PM who exhibited enormous courage and determination to bring the 
perpetrators of crimes committed against humanity in 1971 to book, she can 
prove if she really meant what she said in the Parliament by making the above 
mentioned amendment. This will only help to reassure the millions that she is 
still steadfast in her commitment and determination to complete the 
much-desired process, which she started after a lapse of 4 decades, to an 
honourable end.

(source: mozammel H. Khan; The writer is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee 
for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh-- The Daily Star)






SAUDI ARABIA:

Death sentences for 4 Saudis in 'bloodiest terror' cell


4 Saudi men have been sentenced to death for their role in one of the kingdom's 
"bloodiest terror cells", official SPA news agency has reported.

The agency said late Sunday that a special criminal court in Riyadh jailed "as 
many as 20" others for between 2 and 23 years for a variety of crimes.

These included embracing "deviant" thinking contrary to the Koran, a term 
usually used in Saudi Arabia to refer to Al-Qaeda suspects.

The defendants were also convicted of fighting abroad and purchasing 5 tonnes 
of aluminium nitrate - which can be used to make explosives.

They were also found guilty of booby-trapping vehicles to kill policemen, 
carrying out suicide bombings inside the country, planning to explode oil 
pipelines and killing foreigners as well as Islamic religious leaders, SPA 
said.

The convicted were given 30 days to appeal the verdicts.

SPA did not say when the offences occurred but the sentences are the latest in 
a series since authorities in 2011 established specialised courts to try Saudis 
and foreigners accused of belonging to Al-Qaeda or involvement in deadly 
attacks in the kingdom from 2003-2006.

These included assaults on housing compounds where foreigners lived, and led to 
a crackdown.

Last week, another court in Riyadh sentenced 2 men to death and jailed 13 
others for killing a policeman and forming an Al-Qaeda cell in prison, SPA 
reported.

The sentences come after regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia earlier this month 
agreed with other Arab states to back Washington against Islamic State group 
jihadists.

The group has declared a "caliphate" straddling Iraq and Syria, where it 
controls swathes of territory.

It is regarded as the most violent and powerful in modern jihad, executing 
hundreds of Iraqis and Syrians, as well as foreign hostages in a campaign that 
has forced more than a million people from their homes.

Saudi Arabia's top cleric has branded Al-Qaeda and the IS group Islam's "enemy 
number one".

King Abdullah decreed in February jail terms of up to 20 years for citizens who 
travel to fight abroad. The country is seeking to deter young Saudis from 
becoming jihadists after Syria's conflict attracted several hundred Saudi 
nationals.

(source: Agence France-Presse)