[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

March 14



BURMA----executions

Wa Authorities Say 2 Men Executed in Self-Ruling Region


A court in Panghsang handed down death sentences to 2 people found guilty of 
murder in the autonomous Wa Special Region, where on Sunday the duo were 
executed, according to local sources.

Zhao Guoan, who is a spokesperson from the United Wa State Army (UWSA), 
confirmed the court ruling and the men's execution.

"They killed other people. The court gave the death sentence to them 
yesterday," he told The Irrawaddy on Monday.

He said the crime and severe sentence were rare in the Wa Special Region, an 
autonomous zone in Shan State that is ruled by the UWSA and administers a 
judicial system independent of the Burmese government.

"Our court only gives the death penalty when someone killed another. It happens 
only sometimes here," Zhao said.

The UWSA, Burma's largest ethnic armed group, administers the Wa Special Region 
essentially beyond the reach of the central government in Naypyidaw.

At the national level, Burma is considered a de facto abolitionist state and 
has not openly carried out an execution in decades.

The UWSA-run Wa State TV aired a broadcast on Sunday that showed photos of the 
2 men made to kneel before police officers, presumably before being shot dead 
in accordance with the Panghsang court's ruling.

A separate report, also from UWSA-affiliated media, identified the men, one 
being Yan Lu, a 50-year-old ethnic Wa man who was found to have killed his 2 
wives while under the influence of illicit narcotics.

Li Jian Guo, a 33-year-old Chinese citizen, was found guilty in the slaying of 
his 18-month-old son, also reportedly under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The weekend executions recall a similar case that played out in January in the 
Mong La Special Region, where a Chinese national was reportedly executed by 
officials apparently acting under instruction from the semiautonomous authority 
there. That man, too, was found guilty of murder, as well as arson. The Mong La 
Special region is administered by the National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA), 
a non-state armed group like the UWSA.

(source: The Irrawaddy)






IRAN:

Annual Report Reveals 2015 as Darkest Year for Iran Executions


The full English report was published on Monday March 14.

IHR's 8th annual report on the death penalty reveals 2015 to be one of the 
darkest years in the Islamic Republic of Iran's history. However, the 
horrifying death penalty record has not had an impact on relations between the 
Islamic Republic of Iran and the West.

The numbers presented in this report are very close toin line with the numbers 
presented by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights in 
Iran, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed.

On average between 2 and 3 people were hanged every single day in Iran; 
juvenile offenders, women, political prisoners, and alleged drug offenders were 
among them. That's at least 969 executions in 2015, the highest annual number 
in more than 25 years. 66% of the executions were for drug offenses, even 
though Iranian authorities have admitted multiple times in the past that the 
death penalty has not decreased the volume of drug crimes in Iran. 2015 was 
also the year when the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged out of several years of 
isolation. Following the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group, 
sanctions were lifted and the diplomatic climate between the Islamic Republic 
and the West improved significantly. Currently there are hundreds of European 
companies preparing to resume business in Iran.

Although the reaction of the international community to the wave of executions 
has not been adequate, there have been some encouraging signs inside Iran with 
activists and civil society leaders coming together to stand against the death 
penalty. In particular the forgiveness movement is rising in Iran. According to 
the annual report, the number of victims who chose forgiveness was higher than 
those who asked for a retribution death sentence for the murder convict.

The annual report explains how the charges issued by Iran's Judiciary are 
unfair, the use of torture to coerce confessions is widespread, and in some 
cases the charges against the prisoners were fabricated.

EXECUTION TRENDS UNDER PRESIDENT HASSAN ROUHANI

Since the election of Hassan Rouhani in June 2013, at least 2162 people have 
been executed in Iran. A comparison between the 2 1/2 years after Hassan 
Rouhani's election and the 2 1/2 years before his election show an increase of 
43% in the number of executions carried out in Iran.

The dramatic increase in the number of executions after the election of 
President Rouhani has been, according to some, a reflection of the power 
struggle between the conservative Judiciary and the "moderate" government of 
President Rouhani. Although it is the judiciary which issues and implements 
death sentences, neither President Rouhani nor members of his cabinet have 
expressed any dissatisfaction about the large number of executions. On the 
contrary, when President Rouhani or Foreign minister Javad Zarif were given 
chances to make a statement about the death penalty they defended Iran's high 
number of executions.

Iran Human Rights calls on the United Nations to renew the mandate of the 
Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, the international community to 
require procedural transparency and guarantee fair trials from Iranian 
authorities, and also European partners to help reduce the usage of the death 
penalty in Iran by putting the death penalty on top of the agenda in any talks 
with Iranian authorities. "Europe and European companies cannot be silent 
witnesses to Iran's horrendous death penalty record. Upgrading business 
relationship with the Iranian authorities must be conditioned on restriction of 
the use of the death penalty. The growing abolitionist civil society inside 
Iran and Iran's need for foreign investments provide a rare opportunity for 
Europe to contribute to limiting the use of the death penalty and improving 
human rights in Iran," says Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the executive director of 
Iran Human Rights.

(source: Iran Human Rights)






PHILIPPINES:

'Cheaper to kill than to injure'


There is an official price for human life in the Philippines: P50,000 per 
person.

The amount of P50,000 can buy you a living room set, a secondhand Gucci women's 
bag, or a pair of Prada men's shoes in various online shops like eBay. These 
are the material equivalent of the value of human life in this country.

It was Congress that put a peso value on human life when it passed in 1950 the 
New Civil Code, which states that any person who causes the death of another, 
by committing either a crime or gross negligence, shall be liable to pay a sum 
of money for the resulting loss of life.

Notwithstanding all the speeches in Congress and Supreme Court decisions 
describing life as "priceless," "invaluable" and "irreplaceable," human life 
still has a peso equivalent.

In 1950, the base price fixed by Congress was P3,000 for the wrongful 
termination of a person's life. Notwithstanding the huge fall in the value of 
money in the past 66 years, Congress never adjusted the peso value of life. 
Until now, Article 2206 of the New Civil Code states that the amount payable 
for any human life that is killed is P3,000.

It was the Supreme Court that increased the price of life, first to P6,000, 
then to P9,000, next to P12,000, and eventually, in 1990, to P50,000 (P75,000 
if the crime is penalized with death, even if the death penalty is presently 
suspended).

(It is worthwhile to know the inflation-adjusted peso value of life from the 
1950s to the present. The earliest available inflation data are the figures of 
1958, and the P3,000 monetary value of life in 1958 is equivalent to P325,000 
in 2016. The P50,000 monetary value of life in 1990 is equivalent to P213,000 
in 2016. On the other hand, the P50,000 monetary value of life in 2016 was 
equivalent to P10,500 in 1990, and P500 in 1958.)

For 26 years now, the price of life has not increased and has remained 
generally fixed at P50,000. Hence, if you are murdered by an enemy or a drunk 
driver recklessly causes your death, the criminal will only be liable to pay 
P50,000 as "death indemnity" for the loss of your life.

Of course there will be additional amounts payable for other losses, such as: 
actual damages for losses due to funeral and burial expenses; compensatory 
damages for the loss of the deceased's earning capacity; moral damages for the 
emotional loss and suffering of the heirs; attorney's fees for lawyer expenses; 
and exemplary damages to serve as lesson so that others will not commit the 
same crime.

The amounts payable for each of these additional damages are almost always 
higher than the P50,000 payable for the loss of life itself, but such other 
damages will be measures of how rich, educated and powerful the victim was. And 
this shows that these mere incidents of life are given more value than life 
itself. This also shows how our government regards and values "priceless" life.

This cheap valuation of life has given rise to an outrageous mindset among 
Filipino bus and truck drivers. The absurd belief that is much talked about 
among drivers is that when a reckless driver causes an accident that results in 
serious injuries to a pedestrian, the reckless driver will end up paying a 
lesser amount of damages if the pedestrian ends up dead.

There are anecdotal stories of a bus or truck driver who ran over and seriously 
injured a pedestrian, and then backed up to do a 2nd runover in order to 
deliver death to the injured pedestrian. The motivation to kill the injured 
pedestrian is reportedly due to the gruesome belief that a dead pedestrian 
means lower payment of damages.

There is factual basis for the horrifying belief. Almost always, road accident 
victims have this profile: They are beggars, vendors, and generally poor people 
who have no documented income; their funeral and burial expenses are at minimum 
amounts; the emotional loss of their heirs is tempered by the latter's 
immediate need for cash; and their heirs will be represented pro bono by public 
attorneys.

The profile of poverty among road accident victims means that they would be 
unable to prove substantial damages if the case goes to court trial. Poverty 
also puts extreme pressure on the victims??? heirs to accept a small amount of 
compromise settlement.

In contrast, if the pedestrian is seriously injured but survives, the vehicle 
owner and driver will end up paying substantial medical and rehabilitation 
expenses. Thus, the grisly belief is that the vehicle owner and driver will be 
paying less if the pedestrian ends up dead rather than survives with severe 
injuries.

Even the threat of criminal prosecution for the pedestrian's death does not 
create fear. The crime committed by reckless drivers (reckless imprudence 
resulting in homicide) will lead only to a prison sentence of less than 6 
years. Under the law, a 1st-time offender sentenced to less than 6 years of 
imprisonment can be granted probation. A granted probation means that the 
convicted driver will not go to prison but will merely report monthly to a 
government official to show good behavior.

In 2014, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a bill seeking to increase death 
indemnity to P500,000, noting that it has become "cheaper to kill than to 
injure." But Congress has shown no interest in increasing the price of life.

In all these years, what Congress has shown instead is a hyperactive interest 
in changing the names of streets, schools and buildings. In this hobby of 
changing names, Congress has spent public funds in the hundreds of millions of 
pesos - public funds that can be computed and measured in terms of human lives.

(source: Opinion, Joel Rutuyan, Philippine Daily Inquirer)






BANGLADESH:

Mobarak appeal comes next for SC hearing


The Supreme Court is now set to hear and settle the appeal of convicted war 
criminal Mobarak Hossain.

The defence and the state counsels, however, could not say specifically when 
the apex court would start hearing the appeal.

Earlier, the SC completed the proceedings of the appeal of war criminal Mir 
Quasem Ali and upheld the Jamaat-e-Islami leader's death penalty on March 8.

On November 24, 2014, the International Crimes Tribunal-1 sentenced Mobarak, a 
former Awami League leader from Brahmanbaria, to death for abducting and 
killing 33 people of Tanmandayl village in his district during the Liberation 
War.

The tribunal also sentenced Mobarak to life imprisonment for another war crime 
and acquitted him of 3 other charges.

On December 18, 2014, Mobarak filed an appeal through his lawyers with the apex 
court, challenging the ICT-1 verdict.

In an 82-page appeal, Mobarak sought acquittal of the two charges, in which he 
was found guilty and convicted. He also annexed documents of 780 pages along 
with the appeal.

The former AL leader also mentioned 77 grounds, for which, according to him, 
the court should consider acquitting him.

A defence lawyer, Tajul Islam, told The Daily Star on March 11 that neither the 
defence nor the state counsels submitted concise statements to the SC on the 
appeal.

A concise statement contains the points on which the counsels place arguments 
on an appeal before the SC.

The Appellate Division may include the appeal of Mobarak in its cause list any 
day and ask the counsels for submitting their concise statements to it for 
starting the hearing.

Attorney General Mahbubey Alam told this correspondent on March 11 that his 
office would take necessary steps after the appeal of Mobarak was placed on the 
cause list.

Apart from Mobarak, other appellants in war crimes cases are Jamaat Assistant 
Secretary General ATM Azharul Islam and Senior Nayebe Amir Maulana Abdus Subhan 
and former state minister Syed Mohammad Qaisar.

2 international crimes tribunals have convicted and sentenced them to death for 
committing crimes against humanity during the war in 1971.

Besides, the government filed an appeal with the SC, seeking death penalty for 
former Jatiya Party lawmaker Abdul Jabbar, who is on the run.

The ICT-1 on February 24 last year sentenced Jabbar to imprisonment until death 
in absentia for crimes against humanity.

The SC has so far disposed of the appeals of seven war criminals. Four of them 
have been executed. They are Jamaat leaders Abdul Quader Mollah, Muhammad 
Kamaruzzaman and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and BNP leader Salauddin Quader 
Chowdhury.

The SC on January 6 this year upheld the death penalty for Jamaat chief Motiur 
Rahman Nizami for his war crimes. The apex court has yet to release the full 
text of its judgement on Nizami.

Another war criminal and Jamaat leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee has been behind 
bars as the SC commuted his death sentence to jail until death.

The ICT-1 had earlier sentenced Sayedee to death for his crimes against 
humanity.

(source: The Daily Star)

**********

To kill the killers ---- Can we justify the morality behind capital punishment?


Recently the Supreme Court, the highest judiciary body of Bangladesh, decided 
to uphold the death sentence to former Al-Badr commander Mir Quasem Ali. While 
the attorney general reiterated that justice was served, I decided to ask few 
of my friends about their opinions on this matter.

Some of them, being educated in the West -- self-proclaimed liberals -- 
criticised me for expecting the highest punishment permitted by our legal 
system even for war criminals.

I failed to understand this liberal philosophy. Since when did we stop 
sympathising for the victims and start caring about the criminals?

When has this question "do you support capital punishment" become our ultimate 
test of morality? It would be cowardly of me if I keep my stance a secret so 
that I am not despised among liberal friends of mine.

Most of the people who object to capital punishment do so because they believe 
the punishment itself is morally reprehensible.

The common moral objection I hear is that, wouldn't we as a state, descend to 
the criminal's level if we allow death penalty for murderers? Absolutely not.

The state is not punishing an innocent person, but rather, providing fair 
justice to the families who have lost their loved ones by punishing the 
criminal.

Some of them would want to see the state's right to sentence the death penalty 
repealed, even for the gravest crime.

In fact, Article-6 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights) preserves the state's right to use the death penalty in the cases of 
the most serious crimes.

Although more countries are moving towards abolishing capital punishment, the 
world's 2 largest democracies (the US and India) still retain the capital 
punishment, and almost 2/3 of the world's population still lives in places (top 
four populous countries: China, India, the US, and Indonesia) where capital 
punishment is permitted.

But is it immoral to ask for the death penalty even for the worst crimes? What 
I would try to do is to examine the morality of the punishment through 
Bentham's utilitarian principle and Immanuel Kant's categorical moral 
reasoning, and let readers make an informed argument about the issue.

According to Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, the action 
that maximises utility is the best moral action: "It is the greatest happiness 
of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."

A Benthamite would support capital punishment, only when the benefits to the 
society outweigh the suffering of the person who committed the crime. One 
obvious benefit would be that the death penalty will prevent future murders due 
to its deterrent effects.

There are several studies which show that the death penalty actually reduces 
homicides. Why would we not want to execute murderers if it protects fellow 
innocent citizens from being killed in the future?

As Ernest Van Den Haag, professor of jurisprudence at Fordham University, puts 
it: "Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death 
penalty will deter murder. People fear nothing more than death.

Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death and life 
in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- 
otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of a 
death sentence.

Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence.

And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their 
execution protects citizens from future murder."

Immanuel Kant, often regarded as the most influential scholar of modern 
philosophy, rejects the utilitarian logic of punishing criminals for 2 reasons: 
First, he believes it treats criminals as a tool to achieve others' good; 
Kant's categorical reasoning prohibits this. Second, the utilitarian theory 
could justify punishing an innocent person to promote general welfare.

In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant absolutely insists on capital punishment for 
murderers.

According to Kant: "Whoever has committed murder, must die, because no matter 
how difficult life might be, it is still better than death."

Kant goes even further by arguing that if a state does not sentence a murderer 
to death, eventually it becomes an accomplice to the crime.

(source: Op Ed, Rasheek Irtisam -- dhakatribune.com)






INDIA:

Indian student hacked to death for intercaste marriage----Woman's relatives 
were angered by the couple's marriage, says police commissioner.


An Indian student from the lowest Dalit caste was hacked to death and his wife 
critically injured in southern India in a suspected "honour killing" by 
relatives angered by their marriage, police said Monday.

3 men armed with sickles and sharp weapons attacked the 22-year-old student and 
his wife, who is from a higher caste, on a crowded street in Tamil Nadu state 
on Sunday.

Local police commissioner N Manjunatha said the 19-year-old woman's relatives 
were angered by the couple's marriage.

"They married some 8 months ago and the woman's family was unhappy. She is an 
upper Thevar Hindu caste and the man was a Dalit," Manjunatha told AFP.

The woman is recovering at a local hospital and police are searching for her 
uncle in connection with the attack, he said.

CCTV footage of the incident broadcast on Indian television showed the couple 
walking along the street when 3 men on a motorbike stop and attack them.

Thevars are a dominant community in Tamil Nadu while Dalits, formerly known as 
untouchables, are a historically marginalised community.

India has long witnessed so-called honour killings, where couples are targeted 
because their families or communities disapprove of their relationships over 
caste or religion. Most occur in rural pockets of the north.

They are carried out by relatives or caste groups to protect what is seen as 
the family's reputation and pride.

There are no India-specific figures available, but United Nations statistics 
say 1,000 out of the 5,000 such killings every year are in India.

India's Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that those involved in honour killings 
should face the death penalty.

(source: Agence France-Presse)