[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 16



SINGAPORE

Grant Clemency to Death Row Inmate ---- Sentencing of Kho Jabing Violated Fair 
Trial Rights


Singapore President Tony Tan should urgently grant clemency to death row 
prisoner Kho Jabing, who is due to be executed on May 20, Human Rights Watch 
said today. Jabing was convicted of the murder of Cao Ruyin in 2007.

On April 5, 2016, the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, dismissed Kho 
Jabing's appeal. An Appeals Court panel in January 2015 had reversed, by 3 to 
2, a High Court ruling overturning Kho Jabing's death sentence. At dispute was 
whether his actions during a botched robbery had been done in "blatant 
disregard of human life." At the time of Kho Jabing's conviction, Singapore law 
imposed a mandatory death penalty for the offense, thus preventing the court 
from considering the full circumstances of the crime.

"President Tan should grant clemency to Kho Jabing in recognition of sentencing 
reforms under Singapore law," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. "The 
death penalty is always cruel, and a man's life should not hinge on a legal 
technicality."

Mandatory death sentences are contrary to the rights to a fair trial. As the 
United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary 
executions, stated in 2005, a mandatory death sentence "makes it impossible 
[for the court] to take into account mitigating or extenuating circumstances 
and eliminates any individual determination of an appropriate sentence in a 
particular case .... The adoption of such a black-and-white approach is 
entirely inappropriate where the life of the accused is at stake."

In 2012, Singapore's parliament amended the Penal Code to provide courts with 
some discretion in sentencing certain categories of murder, including murder 
without intent. Since the change of law was considered retroactive, Kho Jabing 
sought a review of his death sentence, stating the murder had not been 
pre-meditated, and there had been no "blatant disregard for human life." In 
August 2013, the High Court agreed, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to life 
imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. Kho Jabing's accomplice in the crime, 
Galing Anak Kujat, had his conviction for murder overturned, and the court 
re-sentenced him for committing robbery with hurt, and sentenced him to 18 
1/2years in prison, and 19 strokes of the cane.

Singapore is one of few countries that retains the death penalty, claiming 
without evidence that capital punishment deters crime. Human Rights Watch 
opposes the death penalty in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and 
irreversibility.

"Singapore's continued use of the death penalty has no place in a modern 
state," Robertson said. "President Tan should cut through the complexities and 
controversies of this case and grant Kho Jabing clemency so that he is 
imprisoned for life."

(source: Human Rights Watch)

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

Grant Clemency to Death Row Inmate


Singapore President Tony Tan should urgently grant clemency to death row 
prisoner Kho Jabing, who is due to be executed on May 20, Human Rights Watch 
said today. Jabing was convicted of the murder of Cao Ruyin in 2007.

On April 5, 2016, the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, dismissed Kho 
Jabing's appeal. An Appeals Court panel in January 2015 had reversed, by 3 to 
2, a High Court ruling overturning Kho Jabing's death sentence. At dispute was 
whether his actions during a botched robbery had been done in "blatant 
disregard of human life." At the time of Kho Jabing's conviction, Singapore law 
imposed a mandatory death penalty for the offense, thus preventing the court 
from considering the full circumstances of the crime.

"President Tan should grant clemency to Kho Jabing in recognition of sentencing 
reforms under Singapore law," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at 
Human Rights Watch. "The death penalty is always cruel, and a man's life should 
not hinge on a legal technicality."

Mandatory death sentences are contrary to the rights to a fair trial, Human 
Rights Watch said. As the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, 
summary or arbitrary executions, stated in 2005, a mandatory death sentence 
"makes it impossible [for the court]to take into account mitigating or 
extenuating circumstances and eliminates any individual determination of an 
appropriate sentence in a particular case.... The adoption of such a 
black-and-white approach is entirely inappropriate where the life of the 
accused is at stake."

In 2012, Singapore's parliament amended the Penal Code to provide courts with 
some discretion in sentencing certain categories of murder, including murder 
without intent. Since the change of law was considered retroactive, Kho Jabing 
sought a review of his death sentence, stating the murder had not been 
pre-meditated, and there had been no "blatant disregard for human life."

In August 2013, the High Court agreed, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to life 
imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. Kho Jabing's accomplice in the crime, 
Galing Anak Kujat, had his conviction for murder overturned, and the court 
re-sentenced him for committing robbery with hurt, and sentenced him to 18 1/2 
years in prison, and 19 strokes of the cane.

Singapore is 1 of few countries that retains the death penalty, claiming 
without evidence that capital punishment deters crime. Human Rights Watch 
opposes the death penalty in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and 
irreversibility.

"Singapore's continued use of the death penalty has no place in a modern 
state," Robertson said. "President Tan should cut through the complexities and 
controversies of this case and grant Kho Jabing clemency so that he is 
imprisoned for life."

(source: theonlinecitizen.com)

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

Death sentence is a lazy form of penalty that does not prevent crimes


Death sentence in recent time has been an issue of contention of whether it is 
an effective mean to deter crime and whether it is a crime against humanity for 
taking a life from another.

Of course, some would argue that its an eye for an eye and the person deserve 
the penalty, the victim's family too would desire the person to be put to 
death. In cases of drug trafficking, people would then argue that the drug 
mules need to be taken to task for causing families to break up due to the drug 
addiction, never mind the fact that drug lords are never taken to task.

First, I would like to do a test with the reader on where he or she stands on 
the death penalty.

Say a murderer who killed 7 kids in cold blood, is on the loose after a trial 
and found guilty of his offence. A passer-by manages to catch the murderer 
sleeping on a bench, recognises the person from the media reports and then 
proceeds to stab the murderer in his sleep over thirty over times, causing the 
murderer to die from his injuries.

Should the passer-by be charged for murder?

The purpose of this test is to ask the reader to judge for themselves, where 
they stand on death penalty, due justice or just vengeance.

In my opinion, death sentence does nothing to change what has happened and 
relinquish the responsibility of the law enforcement agency and relevant 
agencies to reduce the possibility of such an offence to happen again.

Take an actual case for an example, Mr Chia Kee Chen murdered Mr Dexmon Chua in 
December 2013 due to an affair that Chua had with Chia's wife. Just 5 months 
prior to the murder, the police was notified by the deceased in July, of a dark 
purple Hyundai car had been parked below his block, and its driver staring at 
his flat. It is said that the car belongs to Chia's nephew but Chia often 
borrowed it.

When TOC wrote to the police to ask what actions did the police take in 
response to Chua's police report on the stalking, the police declined to 
respond, saying that such details are confidential.

While it is not to say that the police could have prevented the murder of Mr 
Chua if they had found out that it was Mr Chia who is stalking him and gave him 
a warning which would deter him from carrying out his deed of murder. But 
regardless, there still should be a review on what could have been done more.

The common idea is to have death penalty as a way of coming to terms for the 
victim's family, I beg to differ, I feel it is a way of come to terms for 
society at large for their inability and helplessness to prevent such a crime 
from happening.

I do feel that some people deserve to die for the atrocities that they commit 
on others but if you take out the emotional aspect away from the issue, a death 
sentence is just a lazy way to end a criminal case that has no bearing on 
future cases that have yet take place. The public will just move on with life 
after a criminal has been sentenced to death, but what about measures to 
prevent such an incident from happening?

In the horrific killing of a 4-year-old Taiwanese girl, Taiwanese 
president-elect Tsai Ing-Wen did not call for the death of the killer but 
instead, she penned this statement for the deceased. "Little lightbulb 
(nickname for the 4-year-old girl), auntie (referring to herself) will not let 
your sacrifice go to waste, this society has a lot of broken holes, I will use 
all my effort to patch them up."

Let us not kid ourselves further with the myth that by imposing death penalty, 
one will not commit the said crime. It might hold true for offences such as 
drug trafficking and possession of firearms.

Jeffrey Fagan, a professor of law at Columbia University in the US is quoted to 
have said that he believed that there was no evidence that showed the death 
penalty deterred.

He said, "Even when executions are frequent and well-publicised, there are no 
observable changes in crime. Executions serve only to satisfy the urge for 
vengeance. Any retributive value is short-lived, lasting only until the next 
crime."

And according to a 2009 survey of members of the American Criminology Society, 
who were asked to limit their answers to their understanding of the empirical 
research and to exclude their personal opinions. That study found that over 88 
% of the criminologists did not believe the death penalty deterred murderers.

The study concluded by saying, "In short, the consensus among criminologists is 
that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that 
of long-term imprisonment."

For advocates of death penalty, I have 2 questions to ask.

1 - What if the person is later proven to be innocent?

I was speaking to a police inspector at Jurong Police Division after filing a 
police report, he was lamenting on how many cases he has to take up a day, 4 a 
day and if he doesn't clear them, the cases will just pile up. So on judging on 
this anecdotal point, how much time and effort can one afford to put on a case?

How much of a legal defence can an accused put up against the state prosecutors 
who believe that they have a case?

Prominent criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan in his book, "It's easy to cry", 
wrote "We need to get DPPs who are experienced enough, who have seen the world 
and who understand the complexity of human nature to come to the right 
decisions. Instead, we have a lot of what we. at the Defence Bar, call "scholar 
nerds" - These are people who don't understand anything except that it is the 
law and this is how it goes. They do not know how to exercise discretion."

If one is sentenced to life imprisonment, there is still a chance to redress 
any possible misjudgement but a death sentence is a just sorry too late. There 
are just too many real life stories of people wrongly convicted of their crimes 
to take chances.

2 - Why limit the use of death penalty on penal codes?

If the death penalty is really such an effective tool in stopping murders and 
loss of life. Why not impose death penalty on driving under the influence of 
drink or drug that results in loss of life?

In 2013, a driver overdosed on a tranquilising and sedative drug and killed 4 
persons.

Under the current law, for those convicted of causing death by reckless or 
dangerous driving is liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

And for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, 1 is liable on 
conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months and, in the case of a 2nd or 
subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than 
$10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.

So given that it why not impose death penalty for such drivers? If they knew 
the penalty that awaits them, wouldn't they have reconsidered their actions? 
How fair is it to the motorists and pedestrians who had to die due to their 
wanton action. Would you agree on this? And do the Member of Parliaments who 
strongly support the use of death penalty on drug offences, agree on this as 
well?

If death penalty is really so efficient and useful, why are countries around 
the world dropping this penalty from their penal code? But are their murder 
rates rising through the roof? Just google and see if there is any evidence 
that shows this. On the contrary, studies have shown that murder rates are 
lower in countries that have abolished death penalty.

I quote from Kate Allen's write-up on the death penalty that was published in 
the Guardian,

"The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent against people committing 
murder is one of the most stubborn myths about the death penalty. Global 
research by the United Nations and numerous academics has repeatedly shown this 
to be untrue. It's also very hard to square a belief in the "deterrence effect" 
with the fact that in the US, for example, death penalty-using states such as 
Texas have significantly higher homicide rates than states where the death 
penalty has been abolished.

There is no unique deterrent effect in having a hangman's noose in a justice 
system, and a large proportion of murders are in any case rush-of-blood 
killings with little premeditation. What is unique about capital punishment is 
its chilling finality. Once carried out there is no turning back. A wrongly 
jailed prisoner can be released, pardoned, and given damages. A wrongly 
executed one becomes a judicial tragedy."

Is Singapore going to hold on to a myth that if death penalty is removed, 
people will say, "Oh, it is just life imprisonment, no worries, let's go and 
kill some people." or "Let's traffic some arms, since its only life 
imprisonment"?

Does death penalty advance the society in seeking new solutions to issues of 
crime or simply put a full stop on the questions by the death of the 
perpetrator?

Just like the story of the fishing village to metropolis, this should be one of 
the myths that Singaporeans have to ask themselves if they want to face the 
facts upfront and confront the issue as a country or to live happily ever 
after, knowing that someone just have to die under the death penalty so to give 
an impression of a safe country for their families.

(source: Terry Xu, theonlinecitizen.com)

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

Boo Junfeng's Singapore death penalty film stirs emotions in Cannes


Before he made his new film about the death penalty, Boo Junfeng sat down to 
tea with some of Singapore's retired hangmen.

He also talked to the priests and imams who helped condemned prisoners make 
their last walk to the gallows.

And most difficult of all, the young film-maker spent years trying to reach 
through the curtain of shame to families who had lost fathers and sons to the 
hangman's rope.

But it was only after Boo, whose film premieres at the Cannes Film Festival on 
Monday, met one particularly "humane" executioner that he had an epiphany.

He realised that no movie has ever dealt with the whole horrible business from 
the perspective of the man who pulls the lever.

"I had already started to write (the film) but after I met the 1st hangman I 
couldn't write for 3 months. What completely threw me was how much I enjoyed 
his company," said Boo.

"He was not like I thought. He was likeable, charismatic, grandfatherly jocular 
and open about what he did. He took pride in the almost caring way he looked 
after the prisoners trying to make it as humane as he could, and I realised how 
difficult that was.

"He really shook up my ideas and forced me to rethink everything."

So Boo took his film - which he toiled over for 5 years - 1 step further. 
Apprentice has a shocking twist. It is the story of a young man who ended up 
learning the executioner's trade from the man who opened the trapdoor on his 
own father.

More surprising still is the intensity of the almost father-son relationship 
that develops between the young prison guard and the hangman.

"He is in some ways searching for his father," Boo said. "And in doing that he 
finds this man. What I was going for was human truth. I didn't want to make it 
an activist film."

The death penalty is nevertheless a hot political issue in Singapore and in 
neighbouring Indonesia, particularly when foreigners have fallen foul of strict 
anti-drug smuggling laws.

The execution of 7 foreigners in Bali last year - including 2 Australians and a 
mentally ill Brazilian - sparked an international outcry, and several others, 
including a British woman and a Frenchman, are still on death row there.

Boo said he began his research with the book Once A Jolly Hangman, which 
features Darshan Singh, Singapore's chief executioner for nearly 50 years who 
once executed 18 men in 1 day.

Its British author Alan Shadrake was arrested the morning after the book's 
Singapore launch in 2010 and was held for a month in Changi prison for 
insulting the country's judiciary.

He had criticised the way he claimed the death penalty was disproportionately 
applied to the poor, while well-connected criminals and wealthy foreigners 
escaped the noose.

Boo shot the prison scenes in disused prisons in Australia to avoid controversy 
in the tiny city state, where an estimated 95 % of the population still support 
the death penalty.

"It would have been easy to make a film about the death penalty itself, but 
it's much bigger than that. I learned so much about the value of human life" 
from making the movie.

Boo, 32, one of a new wave of talented Singapore film-makers, said his friends 
who are against the death penalty "may be disappointed by the film", which is 
showing in the Certain Regard section at Cannes.

"I took myself out of the comfort zone to address the issue from a different 
point of view. I don't have a view myself. Because the humanity behind the 
issue is so much more complex," said Boo, whose semi-autobiographical first 
feature Sandcastle was a hit at the French festival in 2009.

"Apprentice took so long because I had so much to learn, so many things were 
beyond my experience and very few people really knew (about this world)... And 
unfortunately almost of them are not around" to tell the tale.

(source: Agence france-Presse)






PHILIPPINES:

Philippine bishops tell Duterte not to play God ---- Lipa archbishop says he 
will offer himself to be executed in place of those the government will hang


Several Philippine Catholic church leaders are tamping down the plan of 
President-elect Rodrigo Duterte to revive the death penalty once he assumes 
office on June 30.

"Only God has power over life. God gives life and God takes life. No one should 
play God," said Bishop Ruperto Santos of Balanga.

The prelate, who heads the Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of 
Migrants and Itinerant People, said life is sacred and should be "promoted, 
respected, and protected."

In his 1st press conference since election day, Duterte said he will ask 
Congress to pass a law that will restore the death penalty for certain crimes.

"What I would do is to urge Congress to restore the death penalty by hanging," 
said Duterte.

He said death by hanging will instill fear among criminals and is "virtually 
painless (because) once the spine is ripped off inside it's over, just like 
putting off a light."

The former mayor of Davao, who has been dubbed "The Punisher" for his tough 
stance on crime, said criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire 
syndicates, and those who commit "heinous crimes" will have to face the death 
sentence.

The Catholic Church has been against reviving capital punishment.

Bishop Santos said instead of reviving the death penalty, Duterte should 
instead initiate prison reforms and review the country's justice system.

Archbishop Ramon Arguelles of Lipa said he will volunteer himself to be 
executed in place of those the government will hang.

"Didn't Christ do that?" Archbishop Arguelles asked, adding that if the new 
administration revives capital punishment "Catholic Philippines will be 
merciless in the Year of Mercy."

The Philippines placed a moratorium on capital punishment in 2001 and 5 years 
later downgraded the sentences of 1,230 death-row inmates to life imprisonment 
in what Amnesty International described as the "largest ever commutation of 
death sentences."

(source: ucanews.com)






EGYPT:

Egypt sentences 6 inmates for beating jailed Frenchman to death


An Egyptian court on Sunday handed down 7-year prison sentences to 6 men 
convicted of beating to death a jailed Frenchman in 2013, while his family and 
the defence have blamed the authorities.

49-year-old Eric Lang, who taught French in Cairo, died after a beating in a 
cell on September 13, after spending 6 days in a Cairo police station.

Lang had been stopped on the street because he was not carrying identification 
and was then detained because his visa was not valid.

Lang had remained in detention although the prosecution had ordered his release 
a day after his arrest, family lawyer Raphael Kempf had said.

According to the prosecution's case, 6 inmates in his cell had beaten him to 
death. They were convicted on Sunday of "assault leading to death," according 
to the verdict read by a court official in Cairo.

Several of the defendants' lawyers had called into question the prosecution's 
case, arguing the autopsy showed he had been beaten for more than six hours 
with a rod, according to one of the lawyers, suggesting police involvement.

Lang's mother and sister had also cast doubts on the official account, and 
filed complaints against two police officials and the interior minister over 
the failure to rescue him.

"He was arrested, tortured, killed for nothing, and France did not help in 
releasing him when he should have been extradited," Nicole Prost, Lang's 
mother, said at an April 13 news conference in Paris.

The French government called for justice at the time.

"France is mobilized, in Paris like in Cairo, for the truth of this tragedy to 
be uncovered, and to request that Egyptian authorities ensure us there would 
not be impunity and that those responsible face justice," said a foreign 
ministry spokesman.

Lang had been detained during a tense time in Cairo, when police and the 
military had been out in force to quash protests by Islamist supporters of 
deposed president Mohamed Morsi.

International and domestic rights organizations say the police regularly 
torture and kill detainees and prisoners while in custody, something the 
interior ministry denies.

The verdict on Sunday comes as Egypt fends off accusations of police 
involvement in the death of Italian student Giulio Regeni, whose badly 
mutilated body as found after he disappeared in Cairo in January.

Egypt has denied police were involved in Regeni's death, and its interior 
ministry had suggested a criminal gang was behind his death, a theory ridiculed 
in Italy.

Italy recalled its ambassador to Egypt, after accusing Cairo of not providing 
all the information it needed to investigate Regeni's death.

(source: al-monitor.com)






NIGERIA:

Death penalty may not deter kidnapping - Yusuf Ali, other SANs


Some members of the National Assembly have recently proposed a bill seeking to 
prescribe death penalty for kidnappers in the country just as lawyers argued 
that the recipe for kidnapping is beyond the law writes WALE IGBINTADE.

The issue of capital punishment in Nigeria has generated lots of controversies. 
This method of punishment which includes hanging, shooting and stoning is 
imposed on those found guilty of committing crimes ranging from murder, 
terrorism-related offenses, rape, robbery, kidnapping, treason, and mutiny. 
Just recently the Senate resolved to add to the list by enacting a bill that 
would make provisions for death penalty as the punishment for anyone caught in 
the act of kidnapping. The resolution followed the adoption of a report by the 
Joint Committee on Police Affairs and National Security and Intelligence 
presented by its Chairman, Senator Abu Ibrahim. The Senate had on November 19, 
2015, asked the committee to engage the Inspector General of Police (IG), 
Solomon Arase, and Director-General of Department of State Services (DSS), 
Mamman Daura, on recurrent cases of kidnapping and hostage taking, and 
recommend its findings to the chamber. In his contribution, Senate Minority 
Leader, Godswill Akpabio, noted that kidnapping became popular after former 
Anambra State Governor and incumbent Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr. 
Chris Ngige, was kidnapped in 2002. Speaking on the bill, Yusuf Ali SAN said 
"the solution to kidnapping is more than just the law. There are socio- 
economic issues that must be addressed. From experience, armed robbery has been 
attracting death penalty from the 70s, yet we still have armed robbers.

So, we need to address our socio- economic problems, such as unemployment, 
inequity, the gap between the rich and the poor these are serious issues we 
must address. In his opinion, Chief Yemi Okulaja SAN, said "in America they 
still kill and in China they still kill. All our laws are taken from the Holy 
Books, you can always trace the origin of all the laws we have from the Bible. 
So, if you kill you should be able to pay the penalty. You have deprived a man 
of his life, so why should your life be saved? But, over time, we have had 
human rights activists and they have been the ones coming out with all these 
modifications. In America, it is a State by State basis, if you go to a State 
like Texas, once you commit a crime and you are sentenced and on the death 
roll, you will eventually be killed. I believe death penalty should be allowed 
to stay because this punishment is to serve as a deterrent so that when you 
know that you stand the risk of losing your life you will sit-up. Especially in 
our country where impunity has been institutionalised, I believe death penalty 
should still be part of our law. Justice is not a one- way traffic. If a man 
kills and human rights activists are saying he should not be killed. We should 
look at justice to the victims too. Mr. Norrison Quakers, SAN said "my take on 
this is that we should go beyond just kidnapping and include official 
corruption and criminal breach of trust incorporating politically exposed 
persons, who loot and plunder our common wealth and inheritance by virtue of 
their political off. The irony of our situation is that some of the legislators 
are former chief executive officers of states. Can these persons enact a law 
that will prejudice their interest?

Ponder on this. In his view the Chairman, League of Human Rights Lawyers 
(LHRL), Jiti Ogunye, said "have capital punishment stopped armed robbery? It 
has not. It is wrong to assume that severity of punishment including the 
ultimate penalty, will act as deterrent to commission of crimes. It has no 
historical foundation, it has no jurisprudential foundation, it has no 
foundation in real life. So, in our jurisdiction, since the end of the Civil 
war and the promulgation of the Robbery and Firearms Decree and the 
establishment of the Robbery and Firearm have not stopped armed robbery. 
"Tribunal throughout the entire military period before that tribunal were 
abolished went civil rule returned to Nigeria and the execution of armed 
robbers at bar CONTINUED FROM PAGE 33 beach in various places all over the 
country, armed robbery has not stopped. The toughening of law against 
kidnapping alone will not dissuade prospective kidnappers from kidnapping. 
Those who commit crime believe that they can escape. So, curtailing crimes is 
not just a crime and punishment issue it is more important the law and order 
issue and a socio- economic justice issue. If you want to check kidnapping you 
need to check the rate of unemployment, and equip the law enforcement agencies. 
In his view, Mr. Wale Adesokan said "my own view is that, it not the severity 
of the penalty to an offence that curbs the offence but the mere certainty of 
been caught.

So, it is more important for us to look at our criminal justice system, equip 
our law enforcement agencies with equipment and right orientation. So that when 
someone commits an offence he knows that the possibility of been caught is very 
high. When the Criminal Justice procedure is set in motion, it is possible to 
quickly conclude criminal matters. He delay in concluding criminal matters is a 
major clog in the discouragement of criminal activities. If it is such that 
will reform our criminal justice and ensure that criminal matters are concluded 
between 9 months and 1 year, things will improve drastically. "So it is a 
combination of improving the law enforcement capacity so those criminals are 
caught when they commit criminal acts and also when they are taken to court, 
the law are reformed such that can be concluded within one year. Those are the 
2 things that will curb any criminal activity including kidnapping and not the 
severity of the punishment. No matter the severity of the punishment if people 
think they can get away with it they will continue".

(source: National Mirror)






PAKISTAN:

Who are we hanging?


Abdul Basit's story is the perfect representation of the worst flaws of the 
legal and prison system in the country. The progression of his case and its 
inherent injustices read like a script of the criminal justice system's 
inability to protect the rights of the most vulnerable, the poor and the 
disabled. Abdul Basit is a paraplegic prisoner in Pakistan's 6000 strong death 
row. Despite being paralysed from the waist-down, the Government of Pakistan 
has come within hours of executing him 3 times. The Government's conveyer belt 
of executions since the lifting of the moratorium in December 2014 has claimed 
the lives of 374 prisoners - only 1 in every 10 of who were charged with 
offences related to terrorism. Last week, the Government informed the Superior 
Courts of Pakistan that clemency has not been granted to even a single prisoner 
on death row and over 444 mercy petitions for clemency have been rejected since 
December 2014. It is, therefore, evident that the Government's execution policy 
against its citizens has no room for any mercy, not even for a paralysed man.

Abdul Basit's case, like those of many others on death row, was defined by 
collusion between the police and the influential relatives of the man he was 
accused of murdering. Abdul Basit maintained his innocence till the very end of 
his trial. However, both his appeals were rejected by the Superior Courts, and 
he was awarded the death sentence.During his time in Faisalabad Central Jail, 
Abdul Basit's health began deteriorating rapidly. Despite repeatedly 
complaining of severe headaches and high fever, he was permanently ignored by 
the staff at Faisalabad jail. His mother reported that her once able son would 
scream in pain and bang his head against the wall. The jail authorities were 
well aware that Basit was displaying symptoms of Tuberculosis Meningitis (TB), 
having dealt with similar outbreaks in the past. However, they refused to take 
any steps despite constant pleas from his family. To avoid his spreading the 
disease to other inmates, jail authorities rather than getting him the 
necessary treatment confined him to a solitary cell. It was only when Basit 
lost consciousness from the severe pain, that he was transferred to the 
District Head Quarter Hospital of Faisalabad.

Abdul Basit fell into coma for a duration of 3 weeks. His mother was finally 
called by the jail authorities and was informed that her son had contracted 
Tuberculosis Meningitis (TB). Sheer negligence by those in charge of regulating 
the prisoners had caused him permanent damage. His medical records revealed 
that he had become paralyzed from the waist down and would suffer life-long 
repercussions of the decline in effectiveness of his spinal cord. It was also 
learnt that he will never be able to walk again.Initially, several medical 
practitioners classified his chances of recovery as 'minimal'. The Medical 
Board that assembled to examine his condition on the 29th of July 2015 
unequivocally concluded that he was likely to remain bed-ridden for the 
remainder of his life. However, his latest medical report stating the final 
opinion of another Medical Board convened at Faisalabad Jail on the 24th of 
December, 2015, that chances for future recovery cannot be ruled out.

Abdul Basit's legal team at Justice Project Pakistan has repeatedly made the 
legal assertion that his life cannot be taken away if heed is to be paid to the 
Pakistan Prison Rules, which has even been acknowledged by the Superior Courts. 
It is no secret that Rule 107(iv) of the Prison Rules 1978 grants mercy from 
execution in cases of ill-health. Such an execution, if it materializes, would 
be nothing but a bungled travesty. Even Basit's mother has painfully asserted 
the gloomy notion that her son is now only half human since half of his body is 
already paralyzed and non-functional. The Government has thrice attempted to 
send him to the gallows in the past year, with the last execution being halted 
by no less of an office than the presidency.

Abdul Basit's mother has repeatedly said that the years her son has spent in 
jail are no less than death for him and his family. Abdul Basit entered prison 
a free and able man. Since then he has lost his independence and his ability to 
walk. He spends his days lying on the floor of a prison cell - dependent on 
jail staff for basic functions like going to the bathroom. Does Basit really 
deserve to be executed? The state that is legally and morally responsible for 
the rights of all of its citizens needs to ask itself whether these measures 
and their adverse repercussions are truly achieving the publically claimed 
objective of fighting terrorism. Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 
grants the President of Pakistan the power to grant mercy to prisoners facing 
execution. Basit's family, lawyers and the international and local human rights 
community has repeatedly written to the President asking him to exercise this 
power, but to no avail. The Government of Pakistan by this exercise of mercy 
needs to demonstrate to its people that it is the true repository of their 
fundamental rights and welfare.

(source: Azam Tarar; The writer is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of 
Pakistan)