[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 5



CANADA:

Town mayor wants death penalty to become election issue


The mayor of Louiseville QC, a small town just west of Trois-Rivieres would 
like to see the return of the death penalty to the Canadian justice system, and 
he would like to hear about the candidate's opinion on the matter during the 
present election campaign.

In an interview with the Le Nouvelliste newspaper, Mayor Yvon Deshaies, who has 
been an advocate for the return of the death penalty for some time, wants the 
issue to become an election issue, at least for his local candidates in the 
Trois-Rivieres region. He had already spoken publically about his proposals 
last December which, at the time, brought the issue into the limelight 
throughout the province.

M. Deshaies would also like to see a change to the Canadian Charter of Rights 
and Freedoms which would ban the wearing of the niqab and the burqa, two 
clothing articles that hide one's face, in public. His concern is based on the 
fact that if any accidents or mishaps occurred with someone hiding their face, 
it would be difficult to identify the person at a later date for legal 
purposes.

The mayor has no problem with the wearing of a hijab which covers only the head 
and neck of an individual.

His remarks may be directed at the NDP leader Thomas Mulcair who claimed at one 
time that it would be acceptable to have one's face hidden during citizenship 
swearing-in ceremonies.

(source: lifeinquebec.com)






SUDAN:

South Sudanese pastors facing death penalty freed


2 South Sudanese pastors facing trial for espionage in Sudan have been freed.

Rev Yat Michael and Rev Peter Reith (also named as David Yein Reith in some 
reports) were being held on six charges including espionage, "offending Islamic 
beliefs", promoting hatred amongst sects and undermining the constitutional 
system. If found guilty, they could have faced the death penalty or life 
imprisonment.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), which has been supporting the pastors, 
today confirmed their release.

Michael was arrested on December 14, 2014, and Reith in January of this year. 
They were both detained without charges, and without access to a lawyer or 
their families, until March 1. Ahead of their hearings, they were consistently 
denied access to their legal team, despite guarantees under Sudanese law.

During the final hearing in Khartoum, the defence team presented 2 witnesses. 
Ex-army general and 2010 presidential candidate Abdul Aziz Khalid testified 
that the charges of security and espionage were without basis, and told the 
court that evidence presented by the prosecution was available to the public. 
Both Michael and Reith maintained their innocence.

The pastors' situation prompted international calls for their release from 
human rights groups including Amnesty International. CSW branded the charges 
"unwarranted and extreme" and accused Sudanese authorities of violating fair 
trial principles and "making a mockery of the judicial process".

According to the US Commision on International Religious Freedom, the Sudanese 
government "continues to engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious 
violations of freedom of religion or belief." Designated by the Commission as a 
'country of particular concern' since 1999, Sudan's population is over 97 % 
Muslim, and the country's criminal code restricts religious freedom for all 
citizens. It also imposes Shariah Law on Muslims and Christians, allowing the 
death penalty for apostasy, stoning for adultery and prison sentences for 
blasphemy.

The USCIRF's 2015 report also notes the use of government policies and societal 
pressure to promote conversion to Islam. It is "impossible" to obtain 
permission to build churches, while their destruction has increased over the 
past 4 years.

(source: Christian Today)






GUYANA:

Guyana should implement the death penalty


Dear Editor,

I have long been an advocate of the death penalty, and this belief has been 
further strengthened in the face of the current ever-increasing homicides 
occurring in my native land. Sad to say, the murder rate in any country is a 
reliable indicator of the value that its citizens place on human lives. It can 
also be viewed as indicative of the country's cultural level. On December 20, 
2012 Resolution 67/176 passed by the United Nations General Assembly called on 
Guyana along with several other countries around the world to suspend the death 
penalty, merely based on the premise that any miscarriage or failure of justice 
in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable. 
Sadly, there are some other countries around the world such as Pakistan, Saudi 
Arabia, China, Iraq, Iran that still have the death penalty. Furthermore, in 
countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, simple drug-trafficking earns a death 
sentence. The Prime Minister of Trinidad, Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar has also 
called for a return of the death penalty, despite the motion being previously 
defeated in Parliament.

Hanging may seem barbarous, but the greater barbarity lies in the slow 
abandonment of our common law traditions. The recent brutal murder of 
septuagenarian Carmin Ganesh in her own home in Montrose, all caught on 
videotape has catapulted into my conscious psyche, resulting in a call for the 
reciprocal eye- for-an-eye type punishment. Simple common sense bolstered by 
statistics would inform us that in the past the death penalty did deter murder. 
Let us not be deluded; people fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing 
will deter a criminal more than the fear of death; life in prison is less 
feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution, otherwise, they would not try 
to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. As a consequence, a life 
sentence must be less of a deterrent than a death sentence.

In addition we must hang murderers as long as it is possible that their hanging 
protects citizens from future murders. The police are now armed with rock solid 
evidence of the entire ordeal, along with the novice-type zany behaviour of the 
murderer. In the final analysis this very brazen act caught on tape is 
emblematic of a much larger problem than the gerontocide rate; instead it is 
reflective of a feeble criminal justice system, a poorly structured and 
under-resourced police system and failure to install deterrent measures.

Death by murder has become too commonplace and tough times have always called 
for equally tough measures. The country will move ahead once the murderers like 
their victims are dead.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Sam

(source: Letter to the Editor, Stabroek News)


INDIA:

Supreme Court and the dice of death

"Death penalty is barbaric and inhuman in its effect, mental and physical upon 
the condemned man and is positively cruel. Further, it is irrevocable; it 
cannot be recalled ... Howsoever careful may be the procedural safeguards 
erected by the law before death penalty can be imposed, it is impossible to 
eliminate the chances of judicial error, and it is not at all unlikely that so 
long as death penalty remains a constitutionally valid alternative, the court 
or the state acting through the instrumentality of the court may have on its 
conscience the blood of an innocent man. Instances of wrongful conviction of 
death sentence are known," wrote former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati in his 
famous dissent in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court 
upheld the death penalty by majority. Now that Yakub Memon has been hanged by 
the neck till dead, let us take a step back and introspect on his conviction, 
the drama surrounding his execution, and ponder over the words of Justice 
Bhagwati.

Yakub was the only accused to be sentenced to death for the 1993 Bombay serial 
blasts that spread havoc in March 1993, claiming 257 lives, injuring 713 
persons and damaged properties worth Rs 27 crore (valued in 1993). He was 
convicted by the special court for being one of the chief architects and 
masterminds of the blasts, and was found guilty of participating in several 
meetings where the conspiracy of the blasts was hatched, and arranging travel 
and money for the other perpetrators for the execution of the blasts. Upon 
reading the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the conviction and death 
sentence of Yakub, it becomes clear that the conviction was primarily based on 
the confessional statements of co-accused, some of which were later retracted.

Much concern was aroused by the order for his execution. Some unfortunate 
scenes of celebration outside the Nagpur jail were also telecast. But the 
question that lingers in a mind not captured by jingoism is whether the 
dramatic execution of Yakub was merited in accordance with the law of the land 
and within the constitutional limitations of the deprivation of life.

Yakub is the 1st to be executed for conviction under the draconian (and now 
repealed) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (Tada). 
Being an anti-terrorism law, the Tada Act does not provide for an appeal to the 
high court, but one directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, even a death row 
convict is not subject to confirmation by the high court, unlike in death 
sentences under the regular penal law. Unlike ordinary criminal law, under the 
Tada Act a confession by an accused to a police officer is admissible. 
Obviously, a terrorist activity of such a large scale makes it difficult, nay 
impossible, to get direct evidence against the chief conspirators and, 
therefore, courts often rely on cogent circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps this merits a cautious approach by the apex court while hearing an 
appeal against death sentence. When, in several cases, the court has shied away 
from upholding the death penalty in the absence of independent cogent evidence, 
what provoked the court to sentence Yakub Memon to death primarily on the basis 
of the confessional statements under legislation that provides for no 
requirement of confirmation by the high court is left unanswered. Can the 
"rarest of the rare" test for the death penalty for normal penal offences be at 
the same footing as that for a Tada accused? I ask myself, whether this does 
justice to the due process guarantee under our constitutional framework?

There can be no two views on the fact that the loss of 257 innocent lives in 
the 1993 Bombay serial blasts is decidedly condemnable. Although several people 
were tried and convicted (including Sanjay Dutt, in respect of whom a great 
deal of leniency has been shown by the prosecution and the courts), the 
masterminds have eluded the law. The law in respect of criminal conspiracy 
under the Indian Penal Code is well settled, and it need not be proved that 
each member of the conspiracy was aware of the exact details of the common 
design, so long as it can be proved by inferences drawn from the acts committed 
by the accused persons.

In other words, each is equally liable, irrespective of his/her role. In that 
event, the question is, why were the planters of the bombs, who were sentenced 
to death by the special court for their role in the blasts, spared the noose? 
In my submission, commuting the death sentence of planters of bombs to life 
imprisonment, by terming them as "mere arrows" of the architects, while 
upholding the death sentence of Yakub depicts grave inconsistency. It can 
hardly be said that Yakub alone is responsible for the death of 257 innocent 
people to justify death. While the revelation of B. Raman, 1-time head of the 
counter-terrorism division of the Research and Analysis Wing, brought doubts to 
our minds, which has time and again been a mitigating factor for commuting the 
death sentence, one cannot help but ask whether death penalty was the absolute 
correct course for Yakub.

The debate with regard to Yakub's death sentence saw the participation of 
lawyers, retired judges, filmstars, some politicians, activists and, most 
unfortunately, zealous news anchors. What is not clear is how punishment can be 
a means of justice. No amount of punishment to any person can bring justice to 
the victims of a crime - whatsoever the crime may be, and whosoever the person 
may be. It would be incongruent to common logic and any known theory of 
punishment to think so. While it is commendable that the apex court worked 
overtime to ensure that there was not even an iota of doubt over the court's 
commitment to hearing Yakub's plea against the death sentence, the undue haste 
shown by authorities for his execution is questionable. All these questions 
make me wonder whether Justice Bhagwati was right in his dissenting judgment in 
Bachan Singh's case, where he held that the death penalty was unconstitutional. 
Perhaps it is time for the Supreme Court to re-examine the question of its 
validity.

(source: Amit A. Pai; the writer is a Supreme Court advocate----Asian Age)

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

How Yakub Memon became the poster boy against death penalty----The bald claim 
by some that the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts accused was innocent is meaningless.


There is outrage over the hanging of Yakub Memon who was involved in the 1993 
bomb blasts in Mumbai. And, there is also an outrage over the outrage which is 
probably more justified.

The unmindful debate over hanging has portrayed Yakub as the poster boy in the 
campaign against death sentence. By joining the skewed discourse over injustice 
to Yakub, activists for the abolition of death sentence may have only harmed 
the cause by linking Yakub's hanging with the movement against capital 
punishment. It cannot be ignored that all three hangings that have taken place 
in India after August 2004 have been of terrorists. It will be near impossible 
to mould opinion in favour of abolition with Yakub's face in the forefront only 
reviving memories of death, destruction and pain.

The condemnation of an order to hang a particular convict is different from a 
discourse on abolition of death sentence. It is not for courts to abolish the 
death sentence. Unfortunately, courts in India often get a share of the blame 
with public sympathy shifting from the victims of crime to accused by the time 
a long-drawn trial ends. Coming to the other group protesting specifically 
against death to Yakub, there is hardly any "rational" voice claiming Yakub was 
innocent. With there being no 2 opinions on Yakub getting a fair trial, the 
bald claim by some that he was innocent is meaningless. Then, there are people 
who claim he was hanged for the sins of his brother, Tiger Memon - who 
ironically is so far innocent in the eyes of law. It is beyond comprehension 
that such people believe the charge sheet to hold Tiger guilty but not the 
outcome of the trial which proved beyond doubt that Yakub was one of the 
"driving spirits" behind the blasts.

There is no doubt that everyone is free to differ from the view of judges. But 
to rely blindly on facts not tested or validly rejected during trial and appeal 
after hearing Yakub is unfair. In fact, some of the near convincing arguments 
are best countered in the Supreme Court (SC) judgement itself. The former SC 
judge, justice HS Bedi suggested that sentence should be reconsidered taking 
into account the newly discovered facts, of Yakub surrendering and helping 
agencies, as mitigating circumstances in his favour.

A glance through the SC judgement shows that Yakub "returning to India unlike 
other absconders" was noted as a mitigating circumstance.

For those who feel the court did not give due weightage to this fact, need to 
know that police had already announced a reward on him. Moreover, it needs to 
be pointed out that Yakub's statement (which he repeated during trial also) 
that Tiger was involved in the blasts was hardly of any help. As a general rule 
of evidence, the exculpatory (exonerating himself) statement by an accused 
cannot be used against a co-accused.

Unlike justice Bedi, the former SC judge justice Markandey Katju stressed that 
Yakub was convicted on weak evidence. He says confessions are generally 
extracted by torture and recoveries are planted. But both in this case had 
passed scrutiny during trial and appeal where Yakub got opportunity to earn an 
acquittal by creating "reasonable doubts".

The SC judgement records that it had been proved that Yakub was one of the 
brains behind the blasts, he disbursed money, he attended meetings, stayed in 
the building where bombs were stored and assembled, he was involved in choosing 
the sites for blasts, he emptied his firm's account just before the blasts and 
played a crucial role at various stages to carry forward the conspiracy. And it 
is nobody's case that the SC got the law wrong. As far as sentence is 
concerned, justice Katju had while confirming a death sentence in 2011 set down 
the yardstick stating "in some cases it should be given" otherwise it would 
"tantamount to repeal of the death penalty by the judiciary".

(source: thedailyo.com)

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

Indian H-1B Engineer Raghunandan Yandamuri Guilty of Double Murder - Faces 
death penalty


Raghunandan Yandamuri has been found guilty of double murder of 61-year-old 
Satyavathi Venna and her 10-month-old grand-daughter Saanvi Venna at their 
apartment in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania following a failed kidnapping bid in 
October 2012.

29-year-old Indian software engineer on H-1B visa, facing death penalty for a 
double murder, has told a US court that he would present himself during an 
appeal to the State Supreme Court in Pennsylvania.

After a hearing last week, Montgomery County Judge Steve O'Neill allowed 
Raghunandan to represent himself, but only after warning about how strict and 
rigid the procedures of the high court are, local media reported.

However, the judge has appointed 2 standby attorneys Stephen Heckman and Henry 
Hilles, to help Raghunandan, a native of Andhra Pradesh, if needed.

Raghunandan is facing death sentence by lethal injection.

(source: The Indian Panorama)

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

Will be good if killers of Rajiv Gandhi flee to Sri Lanka: Tamil Nadu govt


Trashing accusations that its decision to release seven Rajiv Gandhi 
assassination case convicts was "political and arbitrary", Tamil Nadu on 
Tuesday wanted to know in the Supreme Court why Congress governments at the 
centre delayed the decision on their mercy pleas that led to commutation of 
their death sentence in the first place.

"Why UPA-I and UPA-II did not hang the killers of Rajiv Gandhi in ten years of 
its rule?" the counsel for Tamil Nadu asked a 5-judge Constitution bench headed 
by Chief Justice H L Dattu.

The bench, also comprising Justices F M I Kalifulla, Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, 
Abhay Manohar Sapre and U U Lalit, is going into the maintainability of the 
Centre's petition opposing Tamil Nadu government's decision to set free the 
convicts after remitting their life sentences in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination 
case.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state government, said Tamil 
Nadu has been wrongly accused of taking a "political, arbitrary and whimsical" 
decision.

"Politics is not the dirty world. All political parties said don't hang them. 
People, all MLAs, opposition were against the hanging," he said.

"How could it be ignored that none from the opposition raised objection," he 
said, adding that the Central government, which did not take a decision on 
their mercy pleas during 2000-2012, cannot accuse the state dispensation of 
arbitrariness.

"You listen, consider the mercy pleas, and do not hang them. Then you are 
merciful. When we do this, then it becomes arbitrary and whimsical," Dwivedi 
said.

"Another apprehension is that they will run away to Sri Lanka. On a lighter 
side, it will be good if they run away. The government can issue a red corner 
notice to prevent their entry into India," the state government said, as per 
The Times of India.

The apex court had on June 28 rejected the curative petition of the Centre 
against the commutation of death penalty into life imprisonment of 3 convicts 
in the case.

The review pleas, challenging the commutation of death penalty to life term of 
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, were dismissed by the court in February last 
year on the ground of 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petitions.

The 3 convicts are lodged in a Vellore prison. Former Prime Minister Rajiv 
Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu.

During the day-long hearing, Dwivedi said the state is empowered to consider 
changes in "factual and material circumstances" of the case and the convicts.

The killing of the former Prime Minister was "diabolic", but after 25 years the 
facts like age, health and other facts of the convicts required to be looked 
into, Dwivedi said.

"It cannot be the case that life (imprisonment) is life without a ray of hope," 
he said.

The court would resume hearing tomorrow.

Earlier, the Centre had asserted that the killers of Gandhi did not deserve to 
be shown any mercy as the assassination was the result of a conspiracy 
involving foreign nationals.

Among the 7 convicts, V Sriharan alias Murugan, Santhan, Robert Pious and Jaya 
Kumar Are Sri Lankan nationals, while female convict Nalini, Ravichandran and 
Arivu are Indians.

The court, on a plea of the erstwhile UPA government, had on February 20 last 
year stayed the state government's decision to release Murugan, Santhan and 
Arivu, whose death sentences had been commuted to life term by it 2 days 
before.

It had later also stayed the release of four other convicts Nalini, Robert 
Pious, Jayakumar and Ravichandran, noting there were procedural lapses on the 
part of the state government.

Santhan, Murugan and Arivu are currently lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore. 
The other 4 are also undergoing life sentence for their role in Gandhi's 
assassination on May 21, 1991.

"The issue of such a nature has been raised for the 1st time in this Court, 
which has wide ramification in determining the scope of application of power of 
remission by the executives, both at the Centre and the State.

"Accordingly, we refer this matter to the Constitution Bench to decide the 
issue pertaining to whether once power of remission under Article 72 (by the 
President) or 161 (by Governor) or by this Court exercising Constitutional 
power under Article 32 is exercised, is there any scope for further 
consideration for remission by the executive," the apex court had said while 
referring the matter to the Constitution bench.

It had said the bench would decide whether the sentence of a prisoner, whose 
death penalty has been commuted to life, can be remitted by the government.

Such a bench would also decide whether life imprisonment meant jail term for 
rest of the life or a convict has a right to claim remission, it said.

Another issue for the Constitution bench to decide would be whether a special 
category of sentence may be provided for cases where death penalty might be 
substituted by imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of 14 
years, and to put that category beyond application of remission.

It will also decide whether the Union of India or the State has primacy over 
the subject matter enlisted in concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule of the 
Constitution for exercise of power of remission.

The Centre had opposed the decision taken by Tamil Nadu government on remission 
of sentence, contending that the state has no power of take such a decision and 
the remission in the present case is illegal and without jurisdiction as it was 
CBI, a central agency, which had probed the case and prosecuted the accused.

(source: Zee news)