[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 7



INDONESIA:

Hopes for mercy for British grandmother on death row in Bali fade after 
Indonesia's new anti-drugs boss sets out tough stance ---- Lindsay Sandiford 
sentenced to death for attempting to smuggle cocaine


A British grandmother on death row in a Bali jail for drug smuggling was 
yesterday told that Indonesia's new anti-narcotics chief plans to show no mercy 
to everyone involved with drugs.

Lindsay Sandiford, 59, from Cheltenham, was sentenced to death by firing squad 
in January 2013 after attempting to smuggle 1.6million pounds worth of cocaine 
through Bali's international airport in May 2012.

She has lost a number of appeals and has had no positive response to her pleas 
for mercy from Indonesian president Joko Widodo, who has taken a hardline 
stance on executing convicted drug offenders.

Until now, people who have been able to prove they are addicts have been shown 
leniency, but the country's new anti-narcotics director, Budi Waseso, has now 
announced that he intends to bring in sweeping changes to the drug law, 
including an end to immunity from prosecution for addicts.

They have until now been at the low end of the drug offenders list but they and 
those convicted of more serious narcotics offences now face execution.

This is bad news for Mrs Sandiford, who has already been told that President 
Widodo intends to show her no mercy and she will be led to the firing squad 
sometime in the near future.

'If they now plan to execute addicts, what hope would someone who smuggles 
drugs have?' asked a visitor to Kerobokan prison, where Mrs Sandiford is being 
held.

If she had been clinging to any hope, that appears now to have gone following 
Mr Waseso's pledge to dramatically change the drug laws and who has announced 
his total support for the President's no-nonsense attitude to serious drug 
offenders.

The existing drug laws, Mr Waseso said, give dealers a loophole to evade 
prosecution by claiming to be a small-time user.

"Dealers are flourishing because they're protected by the law if they admit to 
being a user,' the Jakarta Globe quoted him as saying in Jakarta.

"Under the law, a user may only be put into rehab and not be prosecuted.

"We need to change the law. There should be no more distinction about users ... 
so that dealers don't shield themselves behind the definition of a user.'

Under the current Anti-Narcotics law, a user is qualified as someone who has no 
more than 8 ecstasy pills, less than 1 gram of crystal methamphetamine, or less 
than 5 grams of marijuana.

To add to his tough comments, Mr Waseso denounced the government-run 
rehabilitation programme as a waste of taxpayers' money, claiming it was spent 
on 'fixing broken people'.

Referring to President Widodo's hard-line stance on executing convicted drug 
offenders, Mr Waseso said it was a 'necessary measure' to reduce drug crimes.

No date has been announced for Mrs Sandiford's execution.

At a recent dance event in Bali's Kerobokan Prison where she is being held, she 
was said to have been the only female prisoner who did not come out of her cell 
to take part in the festivities to mark Indonesia's Independence Day.

Fellow inmates said she was very depressed and in no mood to sit with people 
who, despite their confinement, were having fun.

(source: Daily Mail)

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

Prosecutors to make charges related to Engeline's murder


The head of the Denpasar Prosecutor's Office, Imanuel Zebua, says the office 
has received 2 suspects who allegedly murdered Engeline Margret Megawe, an 
8-year-old girl from Denpasar, Bali, along with evidence of the suspects 
involvement in the case from the Denpasar Police on Monday morning.

The head of the Denpasar Prosecutor's Office, Imanuel Zebua, said a team of 
prosecutors would soon make charges against 2 suspects allegedly involved in 
the murder of 8-year-old Engeline.Imanuel said once the charge documents were 
completed the first trial for the 2 suspects would be held.

"We received the case documents today and prosecutors will make charges against 
the 2 suspects as soon as possible so that their trial can be held 
immediately," Imanuel said as quoted by Antara in Denpasar on Monday.

Imanuel said the prosecutor team from the Denpasar Prosecutor's Office took the 
2 suspects along with evidence of their involvement in the murder to Kerobokan 
Penitentiary in Denpasar. Among the articles included in the case dossier for 
the 1st suspect, Agustinus "Agus" Tae Hamdamai, was Article 340 of the Criminal 
Code (KUHP) on the premeditated murder of Engeline, which carried potential 
sentences of 20 years to life or the death penalty.

Agus was also charged with Article 338 of the KUHP on murder, which carries a 
sentence of 15 years in prison, and Article 181 on attempting to cover up a 
murder, which carries a sentence of 9 year's imprisonment, he added.

Imanuel said Agus's case dossiers also included Articles 76 and 80 of Law No. 
35/2014 in reference to Law No. 23/2002 on Child Protection.

Margriet Megawe, the woman who adopted Engeline, will be charged with violating 
Article 340 of the KUHP on premeditated murder. She will also be charged with 
Article 338 of the KUHP on murder and Article 353 on cruel treatment, which 
carries a potential death sentence.

Engeline was found buried in the backyard of Margriet's house on Jl. Sedap 
Malam in Denpasar on June 10 after she was reported missing on May 16.

(source: The Jakarta Post)






AUSTRALIA:

Death penalty: Australian Federal Police dobs 1847 suspects


Federal police have put more than one person at risk of the death penalty every 
day for the past 5 years by co-operating with police forces in countries, 
mainly in Asia, that execute offenders.

The vast majority of the 1847 people whose names were provided to foreign 
police forces were being investigated for drug offences in countries where the 
death penalty is widely imposed and sometimes applied.

The figure is much higher than previously reported, and will shock many who 
were dismayed by the April executions of Bali nine drug smugglers Andrew Chan 
and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin assured Australians after 
their executions that "organisationally" and "personally", the police opposed 
the death penalty, and that the AFP tightly manages the number of reports made 
to foreign jurisdictions.

But official police figures released under freedom-of-information laws to 
researcher Sarah Gill show that between December 2009 and December 2014, more 
than 370 people a year were reported to death penalty jurisdictions. More than 
95 per cent of these referrals were for drug cases.

Not all of these people are Australian citizens and residents - and police do 
not collect those figures - but the number of Australians is likely to amount 
to hundreds over the years. The figures show that, despite guidelines 
introduced in 2009, police grant about 93 % or more of requests for help from 
police forces in death penalty countries. Where the requests are turned down, 
it is usually for bureaucratic reasons - for example, because forms are filled 
out incorrectly - rather than because of the danger to an individual.

Where people are already arrested by police in a death penalty jurisdiction, 
the justice minister must sign off on the help being provided. The vast 
majority of those cases are also approved.

Guidelines introduced in 2009 after the outcry relating to the Bali nine case 
require police to consider the likelihood of the person being subject to the 
death penalty when co-operating with a foreign police force. However, that is 
just one among many considerations, including Australia's interest in promoting 
co-operation with foreign authorities.

A dozen Australians, including two grandmothers, are on death row, including 
nine in China, where they are among 26 in custody in that country on drug 
charges. Police have said in the past that none of the 12 on death row were 
there An AFP spokesman said the organisation acts "appropriately and in 
accordance with Australian and international policies" in death penalty 
matters.

Police policy was to try to fight criminal activity in "source countries," and 
working with foreign law enforcement "has been very successful" in fighting 
crimes including terrorism, child exploitation, human trafficking, people 
smuggling and drug importation, the spokesman said.

"The AFP cannot limit its co-operation to countries that have similar legal 
systems as Australia ... [and] without the ability to work with all of its 
international partners, the AFP simply could not function."

Julian McMahon, one of the lawyers for Chan and Sukumaran, called for an 
independent monitor to help police judge when to refer people to death penalty 
jurisdictions.

"International co-operation is an essential part of the AFP doing their job to 
combat serious crime, and they must be able to continue to do that," Mr McMahon 
said.

"But, where it's a matter of life and death, there is a very heavy burden of 
responsibility on the AFP and our government to act in accordance with our 
national policy to oppose the death penalty, torture and so on. Where so many 
lives may be at risk because of positive steps taken by a busy police force, an 
independent monitor or a review mechanism is in everybody's interest."

Ms Gill said the figures showed the AFP was "exporting the death penalty".

"One of the measures of genuine opposition is a refusal to co-operate with 
death penalty states unless there are assurances that the death penalty won't 
be carried out ... so it is utterly mystifying why our federal police are 
essentially given free reign.

"The guidelines appear to be little more than a facade."

. (source: Sydney Morning Herald)






PAKISTAN:

Capital punishment controversy ---- Today, the number of total abolitionists in 
law or practice is 140, whereas the retention countries are 58 in number


The existence of the death penalty has been a bane of legal systems since time 
immemorial. Capital punishment dates back to the 18th century BC, when it was 
first inscripted on the stele of Hammurabi. It has from there on been in 
practice throughout the world. With changing times, countries around the world 
have opted to abolish the death penalty, limiting it to cases only where the 
ordainment of such punishment is necessary for exceptionally grave crimes. 
Today, the number of total abolitionists in law or practice is 140, whereas the 
retention countries are 58 in number. In Pakistan, a moratorium was introduced 
on the death sentence in 2008, which was eventually lifted in December 2014 
after enormous public pressure in response to the barbaric school attack in 
Peshawar. Since then, military courts have been established for speedy trials 
and one can witness haste in death sentences while the cries of human rights 
activists resonate. The death penalty is considered an inhumane and barbaric 
practice, and at the very least, is a flagrant violation of one's most primal 
right: the right to life.

Is a death sentence really as atrocious and vile as these activists claim? Is 
there really a need to impose a moratorium on executions in Pakistan? I do not 
believe so. The basic structure of society demands that every individual is 
entitled to basic rights and subject to liabilities. However, the question then 
arises: are the people convicted of violating these basic human rights really 
entitled to one of their own? Murder is essentially down to the bare bones, 
taking another's life wilfully. If someone believes that they have the right to 
take another's life, the court holds the same right against them. The most 
appropriate compensation for a crime or injustice is equal retribution: an eye 
for an eye, a life for a life. If the court does not have the right to make the 
decision of capital punishment, it essentially does not have the right to hand 
out equal punishment either.

The opponents usually argue on how the death penalty is far from the realms of 
humanity. However, most countries worldwide have submitted to using lethal 
injections, shooting, hanging or sending convicts to gas chambers for carrying 
out the execution. Abandoning execution in this context would mean no longer 
using barbaric and primitive methods such as beheadings. Some still argue that 
it does not in fact matter whether the method of execution is lethal injection, 
hanging or anything else because all of these methods deliver the same result: 
ending a person's life. If the deliberate killing of an individual in this 
regard seems immoral, what about the pain suffered by the victims? Death 
penalties serve to provide closure to the families of the victim. The 
punishment is a means of avenging the death of an innocent person. True, the 
punishment itself may be no different than the crime itself; calculated and 
deliberate killing of a human being, but the process that is carried out to 
exact revenge is clearly a means of retribution. Hence, reiterating the 
proportionality principle: an eye for an eye and a life for a life.

Furthermore, those in support of retaining the death penalty state that 
executing the criminal ensures that the same misconduct will not be repeated 
and further human lives will not be lost. It serves as a good deterrent. 
However, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in its report, 'Slow march to 
the gallows' questioned the death penalty and commented that if it sets an 
example to restrict other people from committing similar crimes, then why does 
the crime rate in Pakistan continue to grow? It further argues that there is no 
solid evidence of a death sentence actually deterring someone from committing a 
murder since most of such incidents take place in the heat of the moment.

But the report fails to acknowledge some of the most important considerations. 
If there is no data that suggests capital punishment deters people, is there 
any to suggest that it is not a deterrent? Killing a murderer does not produce 
any other outcome other than the fact that those who have taken a life have had 
their life taken as well. However, on the flip side, not executing a murderer 
manifests the probability that he/she will further commit similar crimes in the 
future. The blood of all of their future victims will then be on our hands. The 
world does not deserve to live in fear of a murderer. A swift action taken by 
the law-enforcing agencies while the wounds are fresh can serve as a good 
deterrent for criminals.

It is also quite relevant at this point to quote an example of Saudi Arabia and 
Singapore; countries that have a much lower crime rate than the USA. 
Statistically speaking, Saudi Arabia has one of the world's lowest crime rates 
related to drugs and Singapore has one of the lowest overall crime rates in the 
world. Whereas capital punishment is not necessarily the final outcome for 
cases in the US, lawyers make use of legal ambiguities to make sure their 
client escapes the clutches of death. However it is not the case in countries 
like Singapore where it is nearly impossible to save the life of a convict in 
the light of substantial evidence. Saudi Arabia's strict rules regarding all 
things from drug smuggling to murder serve to deter people from trying to 
commit any offense.

While the rendering of such punishments will not sweep the system clean of 
perpetrators overnight but to discard the idea of the death penalty as a 
ruthless, barbaric one, would be nothing short of a na???ve and myopic approach 
towards the workings of a legal system. What is then needed is the use of 
exemplary punishment to ward off similar threats from potential offenders, for 
a crime so grave deserves to be treated with a punishment of an identical 
intensity and force.

(source: Ali Sahi; The writer is a student at LUMS and freelance 
columnist----Daily Times)






INDIA:

'Death penalty for terror offences alone worrying'


The law commission's recent recommendation to continue with death penalty for 
terror offences was worrying, said former Supreme Court deputy registrar Anup 
Surendranath on Sunday.

Anup, who recently resigned from the Supreme Court post in protest against 
abrupt hanging of Yakub Memon, was delivering keynote address at a seminar on 
death penalty organized by All India Lawyers Union here.

"I find the recommendation for abolishing death penalty for all offences but 
terrorism and waging war problematic. It took 50 years for the law commission 
to review its decision in support of death penalty and we may take a long time 
to revisit it again. Over 94% of those awarded death penalty for terror 
offences are Muslims. It needs to be seen in the context of how the apex court 
had dealt with terrorism," said Anup recalling how 'happy' the court was to 
defer to the legislature whenever anti-terror legislations have approached it. 
He quoted the examples of the apex court's decision regarding constitutionality 
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention 
of Terrorism Act (POTA).

"The problem of retaining death penalty for terror offences was questioned by 
the speaker, pointing out that the Supreme Court didn't apply its own recent 
judgment (Shabnam's case of May 2015) in Memon's case. While the court had 
created an absolute rule in Shabnam's case that the death row prisoner and 
his/her lawyer should be present before the trial court when time and place is 
fixed while issuing a death warrant, the apex court didn't follow it in Memon's 
case," he said.

Similarly, dismissal of challenge raised to rejection of second mercy petition 
citing delay was wrong, Anup said. "Assuming that Memon does not have the right 
to file a second mercy petition was an important constitutional issue as the 
guidelines by ministry of home affairs recognize that a second mercy petition 
can be filed if different grounds (reasons) are taken. Memon took very 
different grounds in the second mercy petition that was filed on July 29. The 
court can't adjudicate these things in 40-90 minutes as to whether he could 
have filed a second mercy petition and under what circumstances or was he 
prevented from filing a 2nd mercy petition at all," observed Anup.

He said it was a significant constitutional issue which could not be decided at 
three in the morning just by listening to lawyers. It required attention of a 
full constitutional bench. "Instead, it was celebrated as we opened the doors 
of the Supreme Court at 3am, it is celebration of the rule of the law' is just 
posturing," he said.

There were serious issues in Memon's last 2 petitions, which had nothing to do 
with whether he deserved the death penalty or not. Those pleas could be seen in 
the context of procedural rights under the Constitution of India. "And 
irrespective of what he did, what he might have done or what I believe he might 
have done, he was entitled to his rights," he stated.

(source: The Times of India)

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

Man convicted for raping, killing minor----3 witnesses, including driver of a 
rickshaw hired by the accused, deposed that they had seen the man and the 
victim together.


A special sessions court Saturday convicted a man for raping and murdering a 
9-year-old girl in suburban Nehru Nagar, Kurla, in 2010. Javed Shaikh (23) was 
convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 363 (kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the 
Indian Penal Code.

3 minor girls were raped and murdered in Nehru Nagar area since February 2010.

The body of a 5-year-old was found in a drain on February 9, 2010 while an 
8-year-old was found murdered on the terrace of a building in police quarters 
on March 9, 2010.

A 9-year-old girl was found murdered in a dilapidated building on June 19, for 
which Shaikh - a technician with a cable operator - was arrested on July 1, 
2010.

While special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat examined 26 witnesses in the 
case, the defence lawyer examined 4.

According to Gharat, the crucial evidence was that hair found on the victim's 
nail matched DNA samples of the accused.

Three witnesses, including driver of a rickshaw hired by the accused, deposed 
that they had seen the man and the victim together. The rickshaw driver deposed 
that he was hired by the duo to take them to a shanty in Nehru Nagar.

The hutment was where Shaikh allegedly raped and murdered the victim.

The defence lawyer examined witnesses from Shaikh's workplace. Claiming false 
implication in the case, the defence lawyer contended that Shaikh was working 
when the crime was allegedly committed.

The lawyer also submitted that the police, under pressure to solve the crimes, 
had made Shaikh a scapegoat.

The public prosecutor has sought death penalty for Shaikh. The court will hear 
arguments on the quantum of punishment on Tuesday.

(source: Indian Express)