[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 3



SAUDI ARABIA:

Prosecutor demands death penalty for businesswoman who killed maid


The public prosecutor has demanded the death sentence for a businesswoman who 
allegedly tortured her maid to death.

A source from the Criminal Court said the court is considering to slap the 
death sentence on the businesswoman.

"The woman's husband is accused of abusing his sponsorship rights and violating 
a human trafficking law, which states sponsors must provide medical treatment 
for their expatriates if needed. The woman is currently in prison awaiting the 
final verdict," said the source.

The source said the husband claimed that he had recruited the maid a few years 
ago but she had escaped from their household.

"The husband said the bruises were caused by the maid falling off the window in 
her attempt to sneak into the house. The businesswoman denied ever beating the 
maid or abusing her. She said the maid was already skinny when she came to 
their house," said the source.

The source said the maid was admitted to a local hospital and reports showed 
signs of bruises and abuse on her body.

"She was severely underweight. She weighed only 30 kg. The businesswoman's 
other maid testified that the woman had beat the deceased maid with a stick and 
starved her resulting in the poor health, which caused her death. The maid 
stayed in the hospital for a week before her death and the doctors tried 
everything to save her but she succumbed," said the source.

The source said the businesswoman claimed the maid was a drug addict in her 
home country and had caused her and her husband many problems due to her 
addiction.

"The businesswoman and her husband are now under arrest, awaiting for the court 
to issue its final verdict," said the source.

The prosecutor said the businesswoman should face the death sentence for her 
brutality and the husband must face penalties for his inhumane acts.

The case was one of the cruelest incidents involving housemaids in the Kingdom.

A Yemeni national was executed in Yanbu last August after he was convicted of 
sexually assaulting and murdering 2 Asian housemaids in separate cases.

Awdah Salem, dubbed in the local media as "the Yanbu serial killer", was also 
found guilty of pouring acid on the body of 1 of the victims and hiding the 
remains of both women at different locations.

Salem confessed in court that he had persuaded 1 of the 2 maids to run away 
with him in 2007. He killed her after a sexual encounter, and threw her body 
into an abandoned well 18 km north of Yanbu. The crime had gone unnoticed at 
the time.

The defendant then admitted that he had lured another maid to elope with him to 
a deserted place. He hit her on the head with a rock after having sexual 
relations with her and buried the body on a beach in the Yanbu industrial area 
in 2008.

Police had been notified of the presence of a body along the beach a few days 
later, but only managed to track down the killer following months of 
investigation.

The man had impersonated a Saudi for several years, moving around with forged 
documents. Evidence also revealed that the man used to abuse his wife and 
children.

While issuing the verdict, the court described the man's crimes as "evil," 
"gruesome" and "inhumane."

(source: Saudi Gazette)






IRAN----executions

Another 5 prisoners hanged collectively in Iran prison


The mullahs' regime in Iran on Wednesday hanged 5 prisoners collectively in the 
Central Prison of Karaj, north-west of Tehran.

The 5 prisoners, hanged at dawn on Wednesday (September 2), were between the 
ages of 28 and 30.

4 of them were identified as Mostafa Akhundzadeh, Hossein Jalali, Majid Rezai, 
and Hamid Farji.

The 5th prisoner was not identified. Iran's fundamentalist regime on Tuesday 
also hanged 4 prisoners in the north-western city of Tabriz and the western 
city of Sanandaj. Another prisoner was hanged in public in the southern city of 
Bandar Abbas on Monday.

A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on August 5 said: "Iran has reportedly executed 
more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last year, at least 753 people were 
executed in the country."

**********

Iran regime hangs 5 prisoners


Iran's fundamentalist regime on Tuesday hanged 4 prisoners in the north-western 
city of Tabriz and the western city of Sanandaj. A 5th prisoner was hanged in 
public in the southern city of Bandar Abbas on Monday.

Zahed Hedayati and Jamal Jaafari were hanged in Sanandaj Prison.

Mostajab Pour Mohammad and Davoud Emazadeh were hanged in Tabriz Prison.

A young man, whose name was not given, was hanged in public near Barq Square in 
Bandar Abbas on Monday.

A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on August 5 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 for both: NCR-Iran)






INDIA:

Death penalty abolition report: why the 3 dissenting voices aren't convincing


If the Law Commission's report on death penalty was meant to force a wider 
debate, 3 of its members have ensured it has begun in earnest.

Justice Usha Mehra, Sanjay Singh and PK Malhotra dissented from the panel's 
majority recommendation that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes save 
terrorism and waging war against the nation.

The majority says it put in the lone caveat on terrorism and waging war as it 
was needed to safeguard national security.

It, however, hopes that the movement towards absolute abolition will be "swift 
and irreversible".

The dissenters aren't convinced. They believe India is not yet ready to drop 
the sentence from the statute books or restrict its scope.

Here are their main arguments and whether they have any merit.

Dissenter 1: Justice Usha Mehra

Justice Mehra, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, makes 2 main arguments 
in her dissent note.

1, by the time a death penalty case reaches the Supreme Court, it has passed 
scrutiny of the high court and the sessions court. This should be enough to 
trust the soundness of the final judgment.

2, prescribing punishment for crimes is the right of the legislature, not 
court. And courts ought to show deference to the wisdom of the elected 
representatives.

Most of the other points she makes are either subjective or emotional. She 
assesses, for instance, that the report lays "too much emphasis" on the human 
rights of those given the death sentence while ignoring the human rights of 
their 'innocent victims'.

Recalling the serial murders of children in Uttar Pradesh's Nithari village in 
2005-06, Justice Mehra asks, "What other sentence could have been given to the 
'Nithari' (killer)?"

She also shifts the debate from constitutionality to "wisdom" by asserting that 
courts ought to defer to the wisdom of the legislature, which alone has the 
right to prescribe punishment for crimes.

Lastly, she rejects the possibility that a convict can be reformed. "How can a 
terrorist be reformed whose main aim is to destroy the peace of the society, if 
not the society as such?" she asks.

Dissenter 2: Sanjay Singh

Singh, the legislative secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, 
substantiates his disagreement by saying that the constitutionality of the 
death penalty has repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court.

He forgets to mention though that the reference to the Law Commission on this 
subject came from the apex court itself.

Singh refers to the much-discussed interpretation of the death penalty as a 
deterrent, saying if it's abolished, "the fear that comes in the way of people 
committing heinous crimes will be removed".

This concern, however, is addressed in the panel's report in detail. It 
concludes that "the fact that there exists a criminal justice system which 
punishes criminal conduct is by itself a deterrent". Therefore, the report 
adds, it is not necessary that punishments by themselves be harsh or excessive.

Singh's most contentious argument, perhaps, is that the panel should not 
recommend "something which has the effect of preventing the state from making 
any law in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country".

But how exactly will a recommendation from the Law Commission prevent the state 
from making laws? Singh doesn't explain.

The judiciary is an arm of the state and well within its rights to make a 
recommendation to another arm. Of course, the executive or legislature then has 
the prerogative to accept or reject the suggestion.

Backing the existing proviso of awarding death only in the "rarest of rare 
case", Singh emphasises the need to frame guidelines on what constitutes the 
"rarest of rare".

Dissenter 3: PK Malhotra

Malhotra, the law secretary and an ex-officio member of the commission, begins 
by saying that abolition of the death penalty is an "eventual goal".

He, however, adds that someone planning to commit a crime should be aware of 
its "implications". And if these implications keep getting waived, the law 
itself would cease to exist.

The objective behind punishing a convict, Malhotra argues, is to establish "an 
example for the rest of humanity" so that it will deter "perverted minds from 
committing such crimes".

He even quotes former US President George W Bush, hardly a poster boy for 
progressive jurisprudence, to argue that the death penalty "saves other 
people's lives".

Malhotra recalls that while studying the Anti-Hijacking Bill, a parliamentary 
committee had suggested the provision for death penalty if somebody dies during 
a hostage situation.

This will of the Parliament, he argues, reflects that the "Indian society is 
yet to mature for total abolition of death penalty".

Now, a sound debate

The Law Commission has done a commendable job studying the issue in detail, 
giving unambiguous recommendations and also noting the points of disagreement.

It's report, indeed, is a good start for a wide debate on abolishing the death 
penalty altogether.

The debate though should be informed by facts, reason and a shared 
understanding of the direction in which civilisation, and this nation, should 
progress.

(source: catchnews.com)

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

Public can't influence death penalty policy


The Law Commission report favouring abolition of death penalty has kicked up a 
debate. In a chat with Mirror, panel's chairman Ajit Prakash Shah explains what 
made him take the stand

QAgainst the backdrop of the recent hanging of Yakub Memon, do you think is 
there a growing demand in our society for death penalty?

Wherever the death penalty has remained on the statute books, public opinion 
all over the world has always been for the retention of death penalty. But 
public opinion should not be used as the only framework for debates on crime, 
punishment and death penalty. Evidence from other countries suggests that it 
takes about 1-2 generations (10-15 years) for public opinion on the issue to 
change. It is for lawmakers to decide and make the change.

QThe Commission's report argues that death penalty serves no penological goal 
of deterrence. But then why should it still be applicable to terrorism-related 
crimes?

The commission's recommendation was that India must move towards abolition. 
That is the ultimate goal. We are clear that this move towards abolition should 
be swift and irreversible. But there are concerns among lawmakers. So, we 
recommended that the move should be done in a phased manner. The UK also took 
over 30 years to achieve total abolition, having been done in a gradual and 
phased manner.

QDo you believe that by hanging terrorists, we serve their cause?

There is plenty to suggest that we serve the cause of terrorists by sending 
them to death. Terrorists solicit death. Many terrorists come on suicide 
missions. The theatrics associated with their execution boosts their political 
aims. They also get a lot of public attention, which should not be the case. 
Take the case of the Indonesian Bali Bomber: he reacted to news of his 
conviction and execution, beaming and with a "thumbs-up", as if he had just won 
an award.

QIs the clause'rarest of rare' difficult to apply?

In case after case, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed deep anguish 
about how we have failed to provide a principled, objective basis to select 
"rarest of rare" cases. Cases include Bariyar, Mohd. Farooq, Sangeet, Khade, 
Rajesh, Swamy Shraddhanand and Alokenath. The Supreme Court has also said that 
the selection of the "rarest of rare" cases has become judge-centric, arbitrary 
and un-principled. The Law Commission studied this question in great detail, 
and came to similar conclusions - that the rarest of rare principle is 
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to administer.

QMany feel that abolition of death penalty is equal to letting the convict go 
free.

The fact is that very few persons are actually executed in India, and the death 
penalty remains largely symbolic. Abolishing the death penalty does not mean 
that you abolish any form of punishment. The Law Commission is not opposed to 
just sentences/just remissions. Life imprisonment is no less deterrent than 
death. Further, there are several states in India that have longer punishments 
for heinous crimes, where life sentence is actually construed as periods 
ranging from 30 years to 60 years.

Q Justice Usha Mehra has slammed the report, saying that there is too much 
emphasis on the death row convict's human rights and too little on the innocent 
victims, do you agree with the view?

I do not wish to comment on her views. However, it is important to point out 
that one of the major reforms suggested in the report relates to reformative 
and restorative justice, focussing on the concerns of victims. The report 
recommends immediate compensation of up to 5 lakh rupees, based on prevalent 
victim compensation schemes in the country. There are also recommendations on 
witness protection, police reforms, as well as reforms of the criminal justice 
system.

QLaw Secretary P K Malhotra argues that time is not ripe, more so because of 
"cultural deterioration". What's your take?

Such arguments of cultural deterioration have been used for many centuries, 
including by our colonial rulers. Instead of using theoretical arguments, we 
need to focus on facts and evidence surrounding questions of crime and 
punishment. It is apparent that the death penalty serves no penological 
purpose. Therefore, we need to start talking about the alternative.

(source: Bangalore Mirror)

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

The Reasons India's Law Commission Says the Death Penalty Should Be Scrapped


India's Law Commission released a report this week recommending that the 
country move toward abolishing the death penalty, except in terrorism cases to 
safeguard national security.

It marks a shift for the body that advises the government on which laws have 
become outdated: In its previous major review in 1967, the commission concluded 
that India couldn't risk the "experiment of abolition of capital punishment."

This time around, in a 251-page document, "the Commission feels that the time 
has come for India to move towards abolition of the death penalty."

At the moment, judges in India can impose the death penalty in the "rarest of 
rare" of cases, including treason, mutiny, murder, abetment of suicide and 
kidnapping for ransom.

In 2013, an amendment to the law permitted death as a punishment in cases where 
rape was fatal or left the victim in a persistent vegetative state; as well as 
for certain repeat offenders.

According to the Law Commission report, recent executions have been few and far 
between. The latest was the execution of Yakub Memon in July. He was found 
guilty of being behind a series of explosions that rocked Mumbai in 1993, 
killing more than 250 people. On average, 129 people are sentenced to death row 
in India every year, the Law Commission report said, citing figures from the 
National Crime Records Bureau.

Despite the fact that death sentences are rarely converted to executions in 
India, the Law Commission said the penalty should be abolished in most cases. 
Here are the reasons the Law Commission gave:

Times have changed

Previously, in reviewing the death penalty, the Law Commission rejected its 
abolition citing the size of the country and diversity of its population across 
which law and order had to be maintained.

"A great deal has changed in India," the commission???s 2015 report said. It 
listed a higher national wage, changes in development, the introduction of a 
new code of criminal procedure in 1973, the emergence of constitutional due 
process standards, calls for abolition of the death penalty from political 
parties and judicial developments among the reasons to review capital 
punishment.

It's not a deterrent

India's murder rate has declined, falling from 4.6 per 100,000 people in 1992 
to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2013. That has coincided with a decline in the rate of 
executions, "raising questions about whether the death penalty has any greater 
deterrent effect than life imprisonment," the report said.

Sentencing is arbitrary

India's Supreme Court has raised questions about "arbitrary sentencing" in 
death penalty cases, the report said. Making the sentencing less arbitrary 
would be difficult since any categorization of offenses doesn't take into 
account the differences between cases, it added.

India's justice system is flawed and mercy doesn't work

Administration of criminal justice in India is in "deep crisis," the report 
says. It cites a lack of resources, an overstretched police force and 
ineffective prosecution as among the reasons. As a result, the administration 
of capital punishment is vulnerable to misapplication, it said. Mercy powers 
have failed in acting as a final safeguard against a miscarriage of justice, 
the report says, adding that the Supreme Court has pointed out gaps and 
illegalities in how courts have discharged the powers.

Waiting is almost torture

People sentenced to death by Indian courts face long delays in trials and 
appeals, the report said. "During this time, the prisoner on death row suffers 
from extreme agony, anxiety and debilitating fear arising out of an imminent 
yet uncertain execution," the Law Commission said. It added that solitary 
confinement and harsh conditions imposed on prisoners were degrading and 
oppressive and that the Supreme Court had acknowledged that the circumstances 
of being on death row in India amount to "near torture" for the convict.

India's in a minority on the death penalty

India has retained capital punishment while 140 countries have abolished it in 
law or in practice, the report says. That leaves the South Asian nation in a 
club with the U.S., Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia as a country which retains 
it.

(source: Wall Street Journal)