[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 30



BANGLADESH:

HC urged to uphold death penalty of 152 BDR mutiny convicts


Attorney General Mahbubey Alam today prayed to the High Court to uphold the 
lower court verdict that sentenced 152 convicts for killing 74 people including 
57 army officials in the 2009 Pilkhana mutiny.

The lower court has rightly convicted and sentenced 152 accused to death after 
properly examining relevant documents, evidence and statements of witnesses, as 
they are responsible for the heinous killings, he told the HC while finishing 
his arguments on the death reference of the case.

After concluding today's proceedings on the death reference, the HC of Justice 
Md Shawkat Hossain, Justice Abu Zafor Siddique and Justice Nazrul Islam 
Talukder set tomorrow for resuming 141th day's hearing on the case.

The defence lawyers will start placing arguments tomorrow on behalf of the 
convicts, Deputy Attorney General AKM Zahid Sarwar Kazal told The Daily Star.

He also said after finishing hearing the arguments on the death reference, the 
HC will hold hearing on the appeals filed individually and collectively by 567 
convicts.

74 people, including 57 army officials, were slain in the Bangladesh Rifles 
(BDR) mutiny on February 25-26, 2009 at the force's Pilkhana headquarters in 
Dhaka.

In November 2013, a Dhaka court sentenced 150 soldiers of BDR, now Border Guard 
Bangladesh, and 2 civilians to death, and jailed 161 for life for their 
involvement.

It also gave rigorous imprisonment, ranging from 3 to 10 years, to 256, mostly 
BDR soldiers. The remaining 277 were acquitted.

A total of 844 people, 823 of them BDR personnel, stood trial in Bangladesh's 
biggest criminal case in terms of the number of accused and convicts.

(source: The Daily Star)






GUYANA:

The death penalty is not a deterrent


Dear Editor,

Tomorrow, 30th November, is Cities for Life Day when cities around the world 
celebrate the abolition of the death penalty. On that day in 1786, the Grand 
Duchy of Tuscany became the 1st civil state in the world to get rid of capital 
punishment.

Over 414,000,000 South Americans can join in the celebrations. Each and every 
one of them lives in a country that has abolished the death penalty. Only 1 
tiny group, roughly 1/5 of 1 % of South America's peoples, is left out. The 
people of Guyana. We are the only country in South America that still has the 
death penalty. Our western neighbour Venezuela was the 1st in South America to 
abolish it. Our eastern neighbour, Suriname, is the most recent. But we have 
nothing to celebrate.

At last week's EU sponsored International Conference on the Abolition of the 
Death Penalty, a few people said that the EU should not tell Guyana to abolish 
the death penalty. I totally agree, but the EU is not telling us what to do. 
Guyana is a democracy. The EU has a right to express its opinion that the death 
penalty is cruel and inhumane, not a deterrent and has no place in a civilised 
society. About 150 states hold that opinion. Perhaps we should give it serious 
consideration.

The member states of the EU have very low murder rates. According to OECD data, 
EU Ambassador Jernej's home state of Slovenia has a murder rate of 2 per 
100,000 persons per year, and the UK, the conference co-sponsor, has a murder 
rate of 3 per 1,000,000 persons per year. Our murder rate fluctuates at around 
18 per 100,000 each year. Perhaps we should ask the UK and the rest of the EU 
how they have achieved such low murder rates. The answers may be complex but at 
least we can start to fix our own broken society piece by piece.

At the conference some individuals have argued that the Bible says "An eye for 
an eye." On what grounds does one prefer that instruction to God's commandment, 
"Thou shalt not kill"? Modern Israel abolished the death penalty for murder in 
1954. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In Matthew 5:38 
Jesus appears to reject completely the teaching of "an eye for an eye." What 
criteria can a Christian use to reject the teachings of Christ?

These are not easy questions to answer. What is very worrying is that the 
various Christian churches and sects of Guyana appear to have no interest in 
working together to formulate one coherent position on the death penalty. It 
was good to see the Catholic nuns and Bishop Alleyne at the conference. It was 
disappointing that more religious leaders did not participate. In order to have 
a rich and meaningful discussion, we need the opinions and advice of Hindus, 
Moslems, Baha'is, Rastafarians, House of Israel, Christians and other 
religions.

A much repeated justification for the death penalty is that it deters murder. 
It should be obvious to everyone by now that every time someone is murdered the 
death penalty has failed as a deterrent. How many people have to die before 
society accepts that the death penalty does not work?

There are some who argue that, despite the murders, the death penalty is 
working because it keeps the rest of us from killing one another. That seems a 
very extreme position. It is not supported by the experience of countries that 
do not have the death penalty. In 2014 there were 537 murders in England and 
Wales. The combined population of those two countries is approximately 
57,500,000 people. Obviously the vast majority of people did not commit murder 
even though there was no death penalty to deter them.

Could it be that the average human being is a reasonably decent person trying 
to lead a decent life in difficult circumstances? Decent people don't kill 
other human beings.

Perhaps we should not be asking, "Does the death penalty deter murder?" but the 
more useful question of, "How do we as one nation with one destiny eliminate, 
or at least reduce, murder in our country?" Proponents of the death penalty 
must compare it with other strategies for reducing murder before they are in a 
position to say whether or not it is effective.

One lawyer has suggested that we need the death penalty to deal with so-called 
Islamic State terrorists. That is probably the one group of people on whom the 
death penalty has absolutely no effect. They want to be martyrs.

Another argument in favour of the death penalty is that the victim deserves 
justice. Unfortunately the victim is dead. That is why it is murder. It is 
literally impossible to render justice to a dead person. On the other hand if a 
murder victim was opposed to the death penalty, then we are guilty of 
dishonouring his/her memory by the death penalty.

Justice for the victim really means that we, the living, are hurt and angry. We 
want the murderer to be punished. That is a very healthy response. We will know 
that we are in serious trouble when we are unmoved or uncaring about the lives 
of our fellow human beings.

The critical and difficult question is what to do with someone who has murdered 
another human being. I believe we should ask the victim???s family and friends. 
We should take their views into account. Perhaps our grief at having failed to 
protect their loved one will help us to unite as a people and protect one 
another better in future.

Perhaps it is necessary to stress that punishment is not the same thing as 
vengeance. In 2011 Anders Breivek murdered 77 people in Norway. The Norwegians 
do not have the death penalty. 2 days after Breivik's heinous crime, Prime 
Minister Jens Stoltenberg said, "We are still shocked by what has happened, but 
we will never give up our values...Our response is more democracy, more 
openness, and more humanity but never naivety...We will answer hatred with 
love."

What kind of country can possibly react in this way? One that is so civilised 
and compassionate that its current murder rate is 6 people in every1,000,000. 
One that is so humane and merciful that its prisons are focused on 
rehabilitation. Prisoners can even go to university.

There are strong feelings in Guyana for and against the penalty. Those who wish 
to retain it must be taken seriously. Their concerns must be heard 
respectfully. Their fears for the safety of their fellow citizens must be 
addressed through legitimate strategies to protect the lives of the people of 
Guyana. But we must not be afraid to change. In addition to our high murder 
rate, we have the highest suicide rate in the world and the fourth highest rate 
of road deaths. How are we going to move away from a culture of death to a 
culture of life?

Next year we will be 50 years old as an independent state. We have thrown away 
a great deal of what we saw as British imperialism. Yet we retain the death 
penalty. Can we really go to our 50th birthday party as a proud and free 
people, with this colonial barbarism around our necks?

The State is the people - it is us. When the State executes a human being we 
are not exempt from responsibility.

As the great Bob Marley asked, "Would you let the system make you kill your 
brother man?" One day we will be civilized and compassionate enough to answer, 
"No. Dread. No!"

It is only a question of when, not if.

Yours faithfully,

Melinda Janki

Executive Director

Justice Institute Guyana Inc

(source: Letter to the Editor, Stabroek News)






MALAYSIA:

Making a change


The abolition of the mandatory death penalty will benefit Malaysia as it is 
hoped to prompt the first move towards the abolition of the death penalty, 
according to Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET).

In Malaysia, the mandatory death penalty is imposed on serious crimes like 
murder, treason, certain firearm offences and drug- trafficking.

Its use in drug-related offences, particularly, has received much censure from 
human rights groups and lawyers.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and de facto Law Minister Nancy 
Shukri had announced that the government planned to abolish the mandatory death 
penalty for drug-related offences.

"Malaysia's image will improve with regard to the European Union, which has 
abolished the death penalty," says MADPET coordinator Charles Hector.

"The convicted person will benefit from this. So, now, when evidence emerges in 
the future showing that the convict is innocent, he will still be alive."

Hector says the only thing that a mandatory sentence does is remove the 
discretion from the courts when it comes to sentencing.

"What is preferable is that Parliament only sets the minimum and maximum 
sentences, and the judge decides on the appropriate sentence based on the 
circumstances of the case."

He believes that only the maximum limit should be set by law, with the 
discretion in sentences to be decided by the courts.

"Sentencing guidelines already exist, but should new guidelines be introduced, 
these should be left to the judiciary - maybe with the involvement possibly of 
the Malaysian Bar and the public prosecutor."

Brickfields Asia College general manager and senior lecturer Daniel Abishegam 
says the proposed abolition tempers the harshness of the current law and 
shouldn't impact the successful prosecution of drug-trafficking offences.

"As I understand it, the proposal does not intend to interfere with the 
evidentiary rules and standard of proof required for a prosecution of a drug- 
related offence.

"The proposal only seeks to add an element of mercy in certain situation where 
the judge sees fit. So, the person will still be convicted of the offence. 
However, if the judge is convinced that the convict was merely a low-level 
functionary and not a dealer, he may exercise his discretion and sentence him 
to a jail term."

Abishegam says the category of people who will benefit from this would be those 
convicted under the presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 
1952, but who were in fact not trafficking.

"They were merely in possession of drugs beyond the permitted amounts. If a 
judge is convinced of this based on the evidence presented before the court, 
the judge would then sentence the person to a long jail-term instead of death.

"The judicial discretion involved will be guided by the statute itself or the 
body of case law that will develop over the years.

"If Parliament feels that the judicial discretion is being exercised in a way 
that is too arbitrary, amendments can be made to the act to reduce discretion.

"However, it is my opinion that judges will be the best persons to decide based 
on the evidence presented before them and giving them some leeway to exercise 
mercy is not a bad thing."

Taylor's Law School associate dean (learning and quality) Lai Mun Onn agrees 
that the proposed amendment, which will increase judicial discretion in 
sentencing, is a positive move.

"Sentencing should be left to the judges. Guidelines can be helpful but, at the 
end of the day, it must not interfere with the judge's discretion.

"The sentence should correspond with the offence, that is, minor sentences for 
minor offences. If the offence is 'minor', the possible harm that could have 
resulted should be small.

"The sentence should, however, be sufficient to deter the individual from 
committing that offence again, as well as send a clear message out that what 
was done was wrong in the eyes of the law and should not be tolerated. The 
sentence should also help rehabilitate the offender and give him/her a chance 
to turn from his/her wrong ways."

Malaysian Bar Council president Steven Thiru says the restoring of judicial 
discretion in drug-related offences that presently carry the mandatory death 
penalty should not adversely impact the prosecution of these offences.

"The prosecution will still have the burden of proving the elements of the 
offence to the requisite standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

"It may well be the case that judges would be more prepared to convict when 
they have the discretion to impose the appropriate and proportionate punishment 
for the offence, as opposed to having their hands tied to impose the mandatory 
death sentence.

"Increased judicial discretion is a good development and it provides guidelines 
to help judges with sentencing. The establishment of a Sentencing Council to 
initially study and collate sentences that have been imposed, and then to 
standardise sentences would help ensure a uniformed, consistent and fair 
sentencing regime."

(source: New Straits Times)

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

Malaysian on S'pore death row: Malaysia mulls abolishing mandatory death 
sentences


The case of Jabing Kho, the Sarawakian on death row in Singapore, is having an 
impact on Malaysia's capital punishment. Minister in the Prime Minister's 
Office Nancy Shukri said on Sunday abolishing the mandatory death sentence is a 
'priority' for her.

Currently, the matter is in the drafting state, she said, adding a bill could 
be presented to Parliament by March.

"This is one of the most important ones (bills) to me. It's very difficult... 
especially when we have to face Kho's case.

"We go to appeal (in Singapore) and yet we also have the same kind of law," 
Nancy said here on Sunday."The death penalty will still be there but minus (it 
being) mandatory, meaning we are giving the power back to the courts."

"Last year, Malaysia executed 2 on death row, both for murder, she said.

"The country has not executed those found guilty for drug offences for 
sometime. "We are keeping them in jail. We hope they get their pardons from 
state rulers," Nancy said.

As of this October, there are 1,022 prisoners on death row in Malaysia. Since 
1998, a total of 33 have been executed in Malaysia.

On Kho, the minister said neither the Federal nor state governments have heard 
from Singapore since November 23, the day its court reserved judgement on the 
Sarawakian's bid to review his death sentence.

Malaysia and Sarawak's stand was still to urge for clemency, hoping Kho's death 
penalty would be converted to a life imprisonment.

However, Nancy said, because it was a murder case, "normally, they would not 
give any clemency".

"We'll just have to wait. The Federal Government had done its part. Now, the 
State Government is appealing based on humanitarian grounds.

"On record, I must say we respect the laws of another country, which is also 
why Malaysia is mulling abolishing mandatory death sentences."

She said Kho's case had made it clear this was "exactly the kind of situation 
that can put us in an awkward place" if another country were to appeal for 
clemency to Malaysia.

Kho, a 31-year-old Sarawakian of Chinese-Iban ethnicity, was scheduled to hang 
on November 6, but was awarded a temporary reprieve less than 24 hours to his 
execution after his lawyer filed a criminal motion at the Singaporean Court of 
Appeal on November 4 for remittance.

He was convicted for the murder of a construction worker in 2008.

Nancy was speaking to reporters after a charity fundraiser for the Sarawak 
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Kuching yesterday.

Earlier this month, Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali said he would propose 
to the Cabinet that the mandatory death penalty be scrapped.

He said mandatory death sentences were a "paradox" as it robbed judges of their 
discretion to impose sentences on convicted criminals.

(source: asiaone.com)


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


YOU WILL GO TO JAIL: Man's mother pleaded as he STABBED his stewardess GF to 
deatth


Neo Chun Zheng was charged on Saturday (Nov 28) with the murder of Ms Soh Yuan 
Lin, who is believed to be his ex-girlfriend.

The incident took place outside the accused's home at Boon Lay Drive on 
Thursday night.

Residents of the HDB block told local media that they overheard the couple 
arguing as well as the man's mother attempting to stop the fight.

Neo, 26, is believed to have stabbed Ms Soh in the neck with a knife measuring 
10cm long. The 23-year-old later died of her injuries at Ng Teng Fong General 
Hospital.

The Straits Times reported that the prosecution requested for Neo to be 
remanded while investigations are on-going.

His case will be heard in court again next Friday (Dec 4).

If found guilty of murder, Neo faces the death penalty.

A 26-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a murder at Boon Lay 
Drive on Thursday night (Nov 26).

According to a statement by the police, they received a call for assistance 
from a unit at Blk 268B Boon Lay Drive at about 8.16pm on Thursday.

Upon their arrival, a woman was found lying motionless in the unit. She was 
taken to Ng Teng Fong General Hospital where she was pronounced dead on the 
same day at about 11.14pm.

Shin Min Daily News quoted neighbours as saying that a loud quarrel between a 
man and a woman outside the unit was heard last night. They told the Chinese 
evening daily that the suspect's mother could also be heard asking the couple 
to stop their argument.

Lianhe Wanbao reported that the victim, 23-year-old Soh Yuan Lin, wanted to 
break up with the suspect, Neo Chun Zheng.

Shin Min reports also identified Soh as a former Scoot flight attendant.

According to Shin Min, an argument was believed to have started over 
allegations that Soh was cheating on Neo.

A neighbour told the Chinese Daily that Neo's mother was crying and asking her 
son repeatedly: "Why are you carrying a knife? You will go to jail."

She was still crying after Soh was attacked and fell to the ground, and stood 
beside the body until the police arrived, Shin Min reported.

Another neighbour Shin Min spoke to alleged that Neo was acting strangely, and 
even smiled when the police were questioning him.

(source: malaysia-chronicle.com)







SAUDI ARABIA:

Saudi Arabian executioners are having an unusually prolific year


Will more than 50 people be executed in just one day in Saudi Arabia? That's 
exactly what the popular newspaper Okaz reported this week, stating that 55 
people were awaiting execution for "terrorist crimes." Another newspaper, the 
pro-government daily al-Riyadh, put the number at 52 in a report that has now 
been deleted online.

Whether these reports are true is unclear - the Saudi state is less than 
transparent about its criminal justice system, fearful of the international 
backlash that its use of capital and corporal punishment can provoke. However, 
the reports are worrisome enough that Amnesty International has felt compelled 
to condemn them.

"Saudi Arabia's macabre spike in executions this year, coupled with the 
secretive and arbitrary nature of court decisions and executions in the 
kingdom, leave us no option but to take these latest warning signs very 
seriously," James Lynch, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa 
Programme at Amnesty International, said in a statement.

Even before these reports, it was clear that Saudi Arabian executioners were 
having an unusually prolific year. Earlier this month, Amnesty announced that 
the country had already executed 151 people this year, the highest number for 
nearly two decades (perhaps not coincidentally, earlier this year the Ministry 
of Civil Service posted a job listing seeking applications for executioners 
positions). Under the country's strict interpretation of Sharia law, relatively 
minor crimes like drug smuggling and even "sorcery" can be punishable by death.

Experts have struggled to explain what has caused the surge in executions over 
the past year. Some have suggested that it could be related to the death of 
Saudi King Abdullah in January and the arrival of the new administration of 
King Salman, a leader who appears to be keen to make his mark on the country. 
However, some groups were already complaining of a surge in executions in late 
August, months before Abdullah died, when Saudi Arabia beheaded 26 people.

There are likely other factors at play. Earlier this year, Ali Adubisi, 
director of the Berlin-based European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, told 
AFP that rising poverty had led to an increased number of drug-related 
convictions in the country. Reuters has reported that there is speculation 
among diplomats that more judges have been hired in the country recently, 
meaning that a backlog of court cases are finally being heard with more 
executions as a result of that.

The details of the executions reported by Okaz seem to suggest something else, 
however. The newspaper reports that those facing execution include alleged 
terrorists from al-Qaeda and people from near Awamiya, a town in the eastern 
part of the country that is largely Shiite. That detail has caused much 
consternation among critics. "Among those who are at imminent risk of execution 
are these 6 Shi'a Muslim activists who were clearly convicted in unfair 
trials," Amnesty's Lynch said, noting that 3 of the activists were arrested 
when they were under the age of 18.

Saudi Arabia, under pressure from both Sunni extremists like al-Qaeda and the 
Islamic State and its regional Shiite rival, Iran, has put considerable efforts 
into its counter-terrorism efforts. The fear among critics, however, is that 
these efforts may be being misdirected - and the Saudi kingdom's surge in 
executions is the result of that.

(source: Washington Post)


GLOBAL:

Death by stoning is barbaric


In some countries of the Middle East, punishment for adultery by stoning has 
been so institutionalized that it is part of their law. Some women of Sri Lanka 
and other Asian countries go to these Middle East countries to work as 
housemaids and domestic workers. While some of them are subjected to unending 
work and certain forms of abuse, they all have to be very careful because it is 
not only adultery that is punished by death; even a mistake made due to 
ignorance, could bring on the chopping off of limbs and even the penalty of 
death.

IGNORANCE PUNISHED BY DEATH

Rizana Nafeek of Sri Lanka went to Saudi Arabia to earn some money to build a 
house for her poor family. She went as a housemaid and she looked after a 
child. She was an inexperienced girl in her mid teens. While feeding, the child 
choked and died. She was accused of killing the child. As she was underage the 
Saudi Arabian authorities waited till she came to her twenties to put her to 
death.

Today, we are concerned about another Sri Lankan woman. She has been condemned 
to death by stoning for committing adultery.

Death by stoning is a primitive mode of punishment that prevailed in the Middle 
East in ancient times but unfortunately still continued in places like Saudi 
Arabia and Iran. The Pharisees in ancient Israel, interpreted the letter of the 
'Mosaic Law', most probably in the Book of Leviticus 20.10 in the Bible which 
states, 'If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the 
adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death..', underlining the gravity 
of the offence. But Moses who had known God as God of compassion and mercy, had 
also stated, 'I charge your judges... hear the cases between your brethren, and 
judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien that is with him. 
You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great 
alike... the cases too hard for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it' 
(Bible: Book of Deuteronomy, 1.10-17).

JESUS REFUSES TO CONDEMN

It was in the context of this mindset that two thousand years ago, a woman 
caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus by those who found her 
committing that sin. And they asked Jesus what he thought about it. The Gospel 
of John (Chapter 8.2-11) gives a good summary of that incident.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught 
committing adultery; and makng her stand there in full view of everybody, they 
said to Jesus, , "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing 
adultery, and Moses has ordered us in the Law to condemn women like this to 
death by stoning. What have you to say? They asked Him this as a test, looking 
for something to use against Him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on 
the ground with His finger. As they persisted with their question, e looked up 
and said, "If there is any one of you who has not sinned let him be the first 
to throw a stone at her". Then he bent down and wrote on the ground again. When 
they heard this they went away one by one beginning with the eldest until Jesus 
was left alone with the woman, who remained standing there. He looked up and 
said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" No one, Sir, she 
replied. "Neither do I condemn you", said Jesus, go away and don't sin any 
more".

Jesus did not condone the woman who probably was a prostitute. Neither did he 
condemn her. He did not mete out any punishment. He disapproved her behaviour 
and told her not to sin any more, thus telling her to change her ways. The 
accusers who did not stone her, at least had the honesty to accept that they 
were not sinless.

Saudi Arabia is the only Islamist country where no other religion is allowed; 
yet the 'Islam' which derives from 'Slim' meaning peace. The Quran opens with 
the words, "In the name of God the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate". The 
majority of Muslims in the world today who are moderate are open to 
accommodation and reconciliation with those who are not of Islam. It is also 
relevant to question why the Muslims fleeing from terrorism do not flee to 
other Muslim countries but to the West.

Islam has overall power in Saudi Arabia but the rigid interpreters of the law 
and the self-righteous there who are going to stone the Lankan woman seem to be 
saying that though they are not merciful or compassionate they are sinless, 
seeing sin in others but not in themselves.

WHITENED SEPULCHRES

Adultery, though it has been there in human history for ages past and though 
most of those who indulge in it are not caught nor punished, those who are 
caught face much humiliation. It is also frowned upon and judged by all 
civilized people as a reprehensible behavioral lapse. Similarly held 
reprehensible is the cutting off of hands and feet and the penalty of death, 
and lapidation meted out for certain offences. However there are other equally 
or more reprehensible behavioural lapses such as indecent behaviour between a 
father and his daughter-in-law, between a mature adult and a child.

Defective upbringing and character formation at home, deficient schooling, lack 
of a culture of self-restraint and self-discipline will certainly create a 
conscienceless hypocritical society of pretense and outward compliance. 
Administering true justice may be a protracted and complex process; But the 
simplified short-cut of Saudi Arabia's justice dehumanizes those who carry it 
out.

Sins of the flesh and disorderly sexual behaviour of the living do not get 
changed or disappear in society by stoning to death someone guilty of bad 
behaviour. Sins of the flesh are committed everywhere, also in Saudi Arabia. 
Only disciplined upbringing in the home and simultaneous character formation 
especially in school, the faith conviction and attraction of the purest 
motivation of religion would not only restrain anyone from doing wrong and 
committing sin including sexual sins but build human beings with self-esteem 
and self-respect. They have learnt and know how to respect the human dignity of 
people and even sacrifice their lives to save the lives of others.

Those who terrorize and kill the innocent, commit many a crime, social evil, 
mega fraud and promote all mass murder are equally or far more culpable than 
those engaging in adultery. And the cunning cover up or the silence before such 
highly blameworthy behaviour and meanwhile condemning others make them 
despicable hypocrites and whitened sepulchers, clean externally but filthy and 
stinking within.

REPEAL INHUMAN LAWS

Stoning to death for adultery is an atrocious form of punishment disapproved by 
the civilized world. In an age when the demand for the abolition of the death 
penalty in any form is growing all over the world, for Saudi Arabia to continue 
to stone people to death stands out as highly inhuman, uncivilized, barbaric 
and brutal. Laws that sanction such punishment should be repealed and erased. 
There is still time for Saudi Arabia to be compassionate and merciful and be 
more true to the better traditions of Islam. The nations that uphold Saudi 
Arabia and other countries that maintain inhuman laws for one's political 
advantage are also guilty of immoral political stances.

(source: Fr. Augustine Fernando, Diocese of Badulla----Sunday Island)