[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 7




PAKISTAN:

Hanging people for a living; Rs500 a head


His job is to kill people - Rs500 a head - and he gets paid by the government.

After the moratorium on death penalty was lifted in December last year, Sabir 
Masih has become a busy man. 1 of the only 2 hangmen in Punjab - he hops from 
city to city performing his job.

For Masih hanging people to death is a family profession. His grandfather was a 
hangmen when the British ruled Pakistan. "In those Dada would get paid only 
Rs20."

There are 36 jails in Punjab with more than 5000 death row convicts. For 
executions, the province has only 2 hangmen to carry out executions throughout 
the province.

Masih sometimes travels miles to carry out his work. "Some jail officers don't 
even pay the fee so it is pointless to expect they will cover your travel 
expenses as well. Sometimes you have to do the government's work by using your 
money from your own pockets," he said.

After the terrorist attack on Army Public School Peshawar the ban on the death 
sentence executions was lifted. Since then 200 convicted criminals have been 
hanged.

With 170 executions Punjab stands top with maximum number of executions most 
number of executions is held in Punjab.

While talking to BBC, he said that he was called by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's police 
to train their local people. According to Sabir, he travels mile to carry out 
his official duties for which he is given only 500 on one execution and if 
there are more than one execution lined up then they will talk about the fee 
accordingly.

Masih said that he had hanged high profile convicts including those involved in 
the GHQ attack and the attack on Former Army chief Pervez Musharraf.

He remembers when convicts charged for these crimes including Dr. Usman were to 
be hanged they didn't show a flicker of shame on their faces. Instead they 
walked by themselves to the wooden stand.

Masih manages to make Rs15000 every month, and till now no terrorist group has 
threatened him, but he is scared nevertheless. Hanging high profile criminals 
in this country is risky business.

(source: aaj.tv)






IRAN----executions

7 more prisoners hanged in Iran


The mullahs' regime in Iran has hanged another 7 prisoners on the same day this 
week.

4 prisoners were hanged on Tuesday in the central province of Yazd. Their names 
were not given.

3 other prisoners were hanged on the same day in a prison in Rafsanjan, central 
Iran. 1 of the prisoners was named as Hossein Seifi-Qoli. The other 2 were not 
named.

At least 64 prisoners, including 2 women, have been executed in Iran, in some 
cases in public squares, within a 3 week period.

A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on Wednesday said: "Iran has reportedly executed 
more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last year, at least 753 people were 
executed in the country."

(source: NCR-Iran)

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

Iranian Authorities Hang 2 Prisoners to Death for Moharebeh


2 prisoners, identified as R.K. and M.R. were hanged to death in Mashhad 
Central Prison for Moharebeh (waging war against God), according to a report 
published on Thursday by the website of the Judiciary in Razavi Khorasan.

R.K. was reportedly sentenced to death in Branch 2 of Mashhad's Revolutionary 
Court and accused of participating in three counts of armed robbery, destroying 
government property, and intentionally injuring a security agent.

M.R. was reportedly sentenced to death in Branch 2 of Mashhad's Revolutionary 
Court, the accusations against him reportedly include: participating in 8 
counts of armed robbery, destroying government property, blackmail, stealing a 
motorcycle, intentionally injuring a security agent, drinking alcohol, using 
illegal drugs, and illegally crossing over Iran's border.

(source: Iran Human Rights)






INDIA:

It's time death penalty is abolished: Aiyar----Prakash Karat: the question of 
who hangs in India today is largely a politically determined decision.


Senior Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar on Thursday said his party had 
forgotten its own stand on abolishing capital punishment which it had taken in 
the historic Karachi session of 1931.

Speaking at the Indian Women's Press Corps here, Mr. Aiyar, who was one of 
several prominent citizens who submitted a mercy plea to President Pranab 
Mukherjee for commuting Yakub Memon's death sentence to life imprisonment, said 
the only possible justification for taking someone's life was if it acted as a 
deterrent to future crimes. "And there is no empirical evidence from anywhere 
in the world to suggest that murdering a murderer will stop other murderers," 
he argued.

Mr. Aiyar, a Rajya Sabha MP, said the time had come for India to abolish the 
death penalty and the place to do was is in Parliament. He cited a private 
member's Bill moved in Parliament by the CPI???s D Raja last week as a possible 
starting point. "Though it was introduced amidst a ruckus, the leader of my 
party in the Rajya Sabha made sure to clarify with the Speaker that the Bills 
introduced would carry over for discussion into the next session."

"Even if the government doesn't come up with a suggestion for abolishing the 
death penalty, and I would be very surprised if they did, I hope it will give 
us a chance to express our views on the matter," he said.

In its 3-day Karachi session in March 1931, the Congress passed a series of 
resolutions on Fundamental Rights and Duties, Labour, Taxation and Expenditure, 
and Economic and Social Programme. One of the clauses of the resolution 
declared: "There shall be no capital punishment." The resolution was moved soon 
after the British government sent Bhagat Singh and his comrades Sukhdev and 
Rajguru to the gallows. In later years, however, following the assassination of 
Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, the party took a harder stand on the death penalty.

The Karachi Congress resolution was also brought up by former CPI(M) general 
secretary Prakash Karat who was speaking alongside Mr. Aiyar at Thursday's 
event. Mr. Karat argued that the question of who hangs in India today was 
largely a politically determined decision. This was clear, he said, if one were 
to look at the cases of prisoners who had been hanged over the past few years, 
such as Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru, against those whose sentences had been 
commuted.

He pointed out that clemency had been shown to the killers of Rajiv Gandhi and 
former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, who enjoyed the backing of the Tamil 
Nadu and Punjab governments respectively. In the case of the latter, Balwant 
Singh Rajoana, Mr. Karat pointed out that his execution was stayed by the Home 
Secretary even after his mercy petition had been rejected by the President, 
only because of political pressure from Punjab.

"The whole of Kashmir said 'don't hang Afzal Guru', I know this because I was 
there at the time, but their voices were never heard. In the case of Rajoana, 
the Home Minister himself intervened to stop the hanging," he said.

Mr. Karat said Guru was hanged because the UPA government thought it expedient 
to carry out the execution since the BJP was making an issue out of it. "In our 
political circumstances the death penalty has become a political weapon and it 
is high time we moved for its abolition," he said.

(source: The Hindu)

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

Seeking end to death penalty, DMK's Kanimozhi set to move private member's bill


In the coming week, Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi says she will introduce a private 
member's bill for the abolition of death penalty in the Upper House of 
Parliament. Her bill seeks to "abolish capital punishment" and substitute all 
references of punishment by death with imprisonment for life in all laws passed 
by the Parliament with retrospective effect. The bill, currently being refined 
by Kanimozhi's team in consultation with lawyers, experts and civil society, 
will be applicable to the entire country, including state governments, which 
will have to pass legislations in abolishing death penalty in their respective 
state Acts.

"I have been engaging with organizations which have worked towards abolishing 
death penalty for many years," Kanimozhi said to ET. "We cannot look at it as 
independent cases because the crime, the situation, the mood of the nation 
changes from incident to incident. We should oppose death penalty in all cases 
whatever the crime maybe."

The DMK is one of a handful of political parties - including CPI, CPM, 
Shiromani Akali Dal and AIADMK - against the death penalty in principle. "It is 
the inhumanness behind the whole act which made the DMK oppose it," said 
Kanimozhi. The DMK resolved against the death penalty in its 2014 conference in 
Tiruchi, and included its abolition in its Lok Sabha election manifesto that 
year. "I see no reason why it [abolition] will not be a part of our 2016 
Manifesto," Kanimozhi added.

Any legislator can present a private members bill acting not on behalf of the 
executive, but in his or her own capacity. Private Members Bills are slated for 
discussion on alternate Fridays when the house is in session, and go through 
the same procedure of enactment as Bills introduced by the government.

The Indian parliament has passed 15 private members bills in all: 14 before the 
1970s, and one after 45 years in April this year, a Bill on transgender rights 
by DMK's Tiruchi Siva. More often than not, private member bills are not 
passed, says Chakshu Roy, Head of Outreach at the Delhi-based PRS Legislative 
Research.

Around Yakub Memon's hanging on July 29, politicians across party lines spoke 
up against the death penalty on social media and to the press. Congress MP 
Shashi Tharoor, AICC general secretary Digvijaya Singh and BJP's Varun Gandhi 
asked for its abolition, but under pressure from their respective parties, 
quickly called it their personal view. PMK founder S Ramadoss tweeted that to 
hang a man on his birthday was a "cruel homage", and AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi 
said Memon was hanged because he had "no political backing".

While the divisive debate rages, only a few MPs have made a move in Parliament. 
On July 20, CPI's D. Raja submitted a private members resolution in the Rajya 
Sabha demanding a moratorium on death penalty. Resolutions are different from 
bills in that they flag issues for discussion in the House. They can form the 
basis of a future bill on the subject, but not be a bill in itself. Raja's 
resolution was to be discussed on 31 July, but since the house was adjourned, 
he says it will be carried over to the next session two months from now.

Kanimozhi's move goes a step further, bringing a Bill to the Rajya Sabha. Under 
its objectives, it calls capital punishment "unjust and inhuman", and 
"irreversibile" in a justice system that will always remain susceptible to 
human failure. It holds that there is no conclusive evidence for it having a 
deterrent effect.

(source: The Economic Times)

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

If Bapu's convict spared, why not Rajiv's killers: TN to SC


If the person given life sentence for conspiring to kill Mahatma Gandhi got 
remission of sentence and was released after 16 years in jail, why should 
similar remission not be given to Rajiv Gandhi assassination conspirators, the 
Tamil Nadu government asked the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi took a bench of Chief 
Justice H L Dattu and Justices F M I Kalifulla, P C Ghose, A M Sapre and U U 
Lalit by surprise by drawing a comparison between the treatment meted out to 
the conspirators in the two assassinations.

He said, "Gopal Narayan Godse was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1949 after 
being convicted as a conspirator in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case. 
Mahatma Gandhi was and is regarded as the Father of the Nation. Even in that 
case, the life convict was given the benefit of remission of sentence after 16 
years and was released from prison."

Dwivedi said assassinations of Rajiv Gandhi and his mother Indira Gandhi were 
bad. "But these cases cannot be on the same footing as that of assassination of 
Mahatma Gandhi. So, can the conspirators sentenced to life imprisonment in 
Rajiv assassination case not be granted remission? They have already spent 23 
years in prison," he said.

"Times have changed. I am not saying all those convicted for conspiracy in an 
assassination case should be released after 16 years in jail. But will it be 
correct to close the door of remission on a convict, which is his fundamental 
right?" Dwivedi asked.

Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated at an election rally at Sriperumbudur in Tamil 
Nadu on May 21, 1991 by human bomb Dhanu after a conspiracy by LTTE and its 
Indian associates. The trial court convicted all 26 accused and awarded death 
sentence to all. The Supreme Court upheld death penalty to only 4 - Murugan, 
Perarivalan, Santhan and Nalini.

Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life by the Tamil Nadu governor. The SC 
last year commuted the death sentences of the other 3 to life, prompting the 
Tamil Nadu government to order remission of their sentence. The Centre 
challenged this decision in the SC, which stayed their release.

Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948 in Delhi. The assassin, 
Nathuram Godse, his brother Gopal Narayan Godse and 7 others were tried on 
charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Nathuram, who pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, was sentenced to death 
along with another accused, Narayan Apte. V D Savarkar, 1 of the co-accused, 
was acquitted by the trial court, while Gopal Godse and 4 others were sentenced 
to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the Punjab high court acquitted 2 more - Dr Parchure and Shankar 
Kistayya. The conviction and sentence of the others was confirmed. Nathuram 
appealed against his conviction on the charge of conspiracy only. He neither 
challenged his conviction for murder nor the death sentence.

Nathuram and Apte were executed in Ambala Jail on November 15, 1949. Gopal 
Godse and another accused, Karkare, were transferred from Ambala Jail to Nasik 
Road central prison in Maharashtra on May 19, 1950. Gopal was later transferred 
to Aurangabad central prison.

Gopal Godse was released from jail on October 13, 1964. He was arrested again 
on November 25, 1964 under the Defence of India Act but was released on 
November 30, 1965.

(source: The Times of India)

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

Death penalty fails the test of humanity


The recent execution of Yakub Memon after his conviction in the Mumbai blasts 
case of 1993 has brought the debate regarding death penalty in India into a 
sharper focus. It's clear that the discourse on the legality, constitutionality 
and human rights implications of death penalty as a form of punishment requires 
a rigorous, balanced and nuanced analysis.

The current Indian law provides for death penalty as a form of punishment. But 
this is limited and can only be imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases. The 
existing legal and constitutional framework for imposing death penalty as a 
form of punishment draws its foundation from the judgment of the Supreme Court 
of India in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab decided 35 years ago. In this case, 
the court upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty, but also 
observed, " ... A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life 
postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That 
ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative 
option is unquestionably foreclosed ..."

It is a rather long time since the "rarest of rare" doctrine evolved. And the 
death penalty jurisprudence developed by our courts is, unfortunately, limited. 
The death penalty cases adjudicated by our courts have hardly been able to 
discuss the sociological, penological and criminological objectives of 
punishment. Instead, there has been far too much emphasis on deterrence as 
opposed to seeking reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. The focus has 
always been on the brutality of the crime and criminal and the vulnerability of 
the victim. Viewing the death penalty as a form of punishment carries the 
state's disapproval of the "rarest of rare" crime.

The decision to determine as to which crimes deserve the death penalty is 
filled with the possibility of arbitrariness, though it is not enough to argue 
that just because there is a risk of judges deciding cases arbitrarily, we 
cannot give them the powers to decide certain cases. But the irreversibility of 
death penalty makes it very different from other decisions made by judges. 
Also, plethora of empirical evidence from around the world, including India, 
about arbitrariness in the judicial decision-making processes in imposing death 
penalty should help us understand the need for removing the death penalty from 
our statute.

An important study of the Supreme Court of India's death penalty judgments 
during 1950-2006 conducted by Amnesty International India and People's Union 
for Civil Liberties, entitled "Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India", 
observed: "...Cases of judicial error in capital trials illustrate starkly the 
human failings of the criminal justice system and reiterate the lethal judicial 
lottery that is the death penalty in India ..."

The protection of human rights in India has evolved through judicial 
recognition of constitutionally protected rights. It is important for India to 
recognise that death penalty has moved from being a national criminal justice 
policy issue to an international human rights issue. And that's why expanding 
the provision of the "right to life" in Article 21 of the Constitution of India 
is necessary with a view to recognising that this right cannot be taken away by 
the state even through a procedure that is 'fair, just and reasonable". In that 
sense, capital punishment ought to be declared unconstitutional because death 
penalty is not in consonance with our constitutional values.

The arbitrariness that is deeply embedded in the decision-making process of the 
courts to determine whether a particular case falls under the category of 
"rarest of rare" undermines the judicial process. In the absence of sentencing 
guidelines, it becomes entirely the discretion of the judges to determine 
whether a particular case is fit for imposing capital punishment.

The South African Constitutional Court in a landmark decision in 1995 (State vs 
Makwanyane), while declaring that death penalty is unconstitutional observed: " 
... It cannot be gainsaid that poverty, race and chance play roles in the 
outcome of capital cases and in the final decision as to who should live and 
who should die ... At its core, constitutionalism is about the protection and 
development of rights, not their extinction ... Every person shall have the 
right to life. If not, the killer unwittingly achieves a final and perverse 
moral victory by making the state a killer too, thus reducing social abhorrence 
at the conscious extinction of human beings ..."

National and international norms relating to human rights have evolved faster 
in the last few decades. 99 countries in the world have completely abolished 
the death penalty.

The international human rights regime has established conventions and protocols 
with a view to protecting human rights. The UN Human Rights Committee in a 
landmark decision in 2003 (Roger Judge vs Canada, August 13, 2003) observed: " 
... there has been a broadening international consensus in favour of abolition 
of the death penalty, and in states which have retained the death penalty, a 
broadening consensus not to carry it out ..."

India needs to evolve social and political consensus to completely abolish 
death penalty for all crimes, including acts of terrorism. No civilised 
society, especially constitutional democracies, can allow state and its 
instrumentalities to take away anybody's life. There are significant studies 
that have demonstrated that all the reasons for which death penalty as a form 
of punishment could be imposed are not supported by empirical evidence. The 
most persuasive argument - that of deterrence - has also been proved 
ineffective. Professors Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle of the University of 
Oxford in their recent book, The Death Penalty: A worldwide Perspective, have 
observed, " ... the case for retaining the death penalty - and thus resisting 
the movement to make its abolition an international norm - cannot rest solely 
on moral, cultural or religious arguments. It would also have to be shown that 
it is useful and that it can be applied fairly, without mistakes, and without 
any degree of arbitrariness or cruelty unacceptable to contemporary social and 
legal values. There is ... sufficient evidence to indict capital punishment for 
failing the test of humanity on all these grounds."

(source: C. Raj Kumar; The writer is the founding vice-chancellor of O.P. 
Jindal Global University and dean of Jindal Global Law School----The Asian Age)

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

Tripura assembly passes resolution against death penalty


Congress MLA Jitendra Sarkar moved a motion in the assembly in its opening day 
on Friday against death penalty and asked to replace it with life sentence unto 
death.

Tripura Assembly has passed a resolution to request the Union Government to 
amend Section 302 of the IPC to abolish capital punishment. The resolution is 
apparently fallout of recent hanging of Yakub Memon, prime accused in Mumbai 
serial blasts.

Congress MLA Jitendra Sarkar moved a motion in the assembly in its opening day 
on Friday against death penalty and asked to replace it with life sentence unto 
death. Speaker opened the motion for a brief discussion before adoption of a 
resolution.

Chief Minister Manik Sarkar rose to strongly oppose capital punishment terming 
it a murder of somebody for committing a murder. Leader of opposition Sudip Roy 
Burman quoted Mahatma Gandhi to raise his objection to death sentence.

Exception was Ratan Lal Nath of Congress who spoke on a different tone to 
favour continuation of capital punishment to deal with terrorists and heinous 
crimes. "Mumbai blasts victims had also right to live," he argued.

Mr Nath however did not oppose when Speaker put the motion to vote to seek 
assent of the members. Speaker declared that the motion was passed unanimously.

The adopted resolution would be sent to union government and the Law Commission 
for consideration. It requested for necessary amendment in IPC Section 302 for 
commuting death sentence.

(source: The Hindu)