[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 9



PHILIPPINES:

House starts debate on death penalty bill


The House of Representatives sub-committee on judicial reforms on Wednesday 
tackled the bill on death penalty amid the administration's push to revive 
capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.

The subcommittee under the House justice committee tackled the seven bills 
restoring death penalty, including the principal bill filed by Speaker 
Pantaleon Alvarez under House Bill 1, which seeks to repeal the law abolishing 
death penalty.

Subcommittee chairperson Leyte Rep. Vicente "Ching" Veloso, a former Court of 
Appeals justice, in an interview said he personally supported the restoration 
of death penalty as an effective deterrent to crime.

Veloso however denied that Alvarez gave the marching orders for the committee 
to railroad the bill.

Alvarez earlier vowed that the restoration of death penalty would be approved 
before the December break.

Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption President Dante Jimenez maintained that 
previous administrations only failed to ensure that death penalty is a 
deterrent to crime.

"The argument that it is not a deterrent to crime is misleading. The factor of 
death penalty is clear in history, even martial years and during Marcos years, 
and in drug trafficking due to capital punishment, when drug lords are publicly 
executed, sending a chilling signal to hardened criminals and offenders to keep 
off from illegal activities," Jimenez said.

But Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who was among the lawmakers who pushed for the 
abolition of death penalty in 2006, became irked when Jimenez gave an 
unresponsive answer to a question.

When Lagman asked Jimenez if he knows that death penalty has been in place 
since the dawn of civilization, Jimenez answered: "I don't know, I was born in 
1952."

"I will not further question this witness for that kind of answer," Lagman 
said.

After being reprimanded by the committee, Jimenez said he was only answering 
candidly the question of Lagman.

He appealed that the committee understand his position on death penalty, citing 
the death of his brother by drug syndicates in 1990 supposedly due to mistaken 
identity.

"If I offended the congressman, I'm sorry, and I hope you will understand my 
position here," Jimenez said.

The committee called for an adjournment after Lagman gave a silent treatment to 
Jimenez.

"I only understand the position of resource person if he answers responsively," 
Lagman said, before the hearing adjourned until next week Tuesday.

It was Speaker Alvarez who first filed the bill seeking to reimpose death 
penalty after former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo abolished capital 
punishment in 2006 for its failure to deter crime.

Alvarez filed the bill to reinstate death penalty, pursuant to President 
Rodrigo Duterte's campaign promise of returning capital punishment against 
heinous criminals.

Alvarez's bill sought to reimpose death penalty on heinous crimes listed under 
Republic Act 7659, including murder, plunder, rape, kidnapping and serious 
illegal detention, sale, use and possession of illegal drugs, carnapping with 
homicide, among others.

In the bill he co-authored with deputy speaker Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro, 
Alvarez said there is a need to reimpose death penalty because "the national 
crime rate has grown to such alarming proportions requiring an all-out 
offensive against all forms of felonious acts."

"Philippine society is left with no option but to deal with certain grievous 
offenders in a manner commensurate to the gravity, perversity, atrociousness 
and repugnance of their crimes," according to the bill.

Duterte had won the elections in a campaign promise to restore death penalty by 
hanging, even making a snide remark that the convicts' head should be severed 
from the hanging. Alvarez said Congress would look into the cheapest way for 
death penalty, either by firing squad, lethal injection, or by hanging.

(source: Philippine Inquirer)






TURKEY:

Death penalty, NATO and the EU


There are new developments on the presidential system and the capital 
punishment topics after talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and 
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli.

Upon Bahceli's declaration that the MHP would support a bill reinstating the 
death penalty, the debate has changed direction. The view on reinstating 
capital punishment has strengthened.

The death penalty was to be brought for Fethullah Gulen and the putschists, and 
also for Abdullah Ocalan and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) 
terrorists. The MHP has been precise on Ocalan since the beginning. It is known 
that Bahceli holds Gulen and Ocalan, the coup attempt and PKK terror on the 
same level.

However, Bahceli warns and asks the government to consider the international 
dimension of reinstating the capital punishment.

In the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), there are 2 separate 
evaluations on capital punishment. The 1st one is that July 15 is a process; 
both Gulen and Ocalan can face the death penalty within the scope of a 
continuous crime. The 2nd one is that even if the death penalty is reinstated, 
it cannot be retroactive.

Serious debates are ongoing. In the cabinet meeting headed by Erdogan, this 
topic was brought up. The cabinet agrees with Erdogan but there are also 
different evaluations.

The thought was, "Even if the capital punishment is reinstated, Ocalan and 
Gulen would not be hanged because the penalty is non-retroactive. We would be 
reinstating the death penalty but we would not be able to execute. Our image 
would be smashed. NATO will expel us."

Upon this, the president intervened, "How can they expel us from NATO? There is 
a death penalty in the U.S." Then, it was stated that in the U.S. legal system, 
the death penalty has always been maintained whereas in EU law which Turkey is 
a party to, there is no death penalty.

A decision has not been made yet. However, some of the legal experts in the AK 
Party argue that this could be applied to Ocalan but not to Gulen. Some others 
argue the opposite. Those who argue that it can be applied to Gulen believe 
that the July 15 process is going on without interruption. Those who argue that 
it can be applied to Ocalan are aware that the death penalty cannot be given to 
him as his case has been closed. Only if in the PKK's new attacks an order 
given by Ocalan can be traced, could he be retried.

When Ocalan was sentenced to death, the MHP was the coalition partner. In a 
7.5-hour meeting presided by then-Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, Bahceli did not 
break the coalition, putting the vital interests of the country first. Even 
though he paid the political price, he acted with common sense.

Some AK Party members have this question in their minds. When the death 
sentence was given to Ocalan, the MHP was the coalition partner. Why is 
Bahceli, who did not hang Ocalan then, bringing it up now?

My impression on the death penalty is that they will take it slowly. I had the 
impression that the death penalty topic might be left to cool.

In the presidential system, on the other hand, Erdogan has not given any 
perspective. Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yildirim will come together and 
decide on a calendar. This matter should be clarified this week. Instead of a 
comprehensive amendment, they are focusing on an arrangement that could be 
processed "as fast as possible."

For a while, the practices of the government and MHP policies have overlapped. 
This is so in the fight against the PKK, the arrests of HDP deputies, the 
appointment of caretakers to HDP municipalities, as well as the "Shield of 
Euphrates" and Mosul operations. In these issues, Erdogan has taken the lead to 
an extent that would also meet the expectations of the MHP.

Also, Erdogan and Bahceli regard the situation our country is facing as a 
"survival of the country" issue.

Certain AK Party members are also questioning that while the presidential 
system is based on a 2-party system, this would harm the MHP. Why should 
Bahceli consent to this system?

The question is important, but the process is more important.

(source: Abdulkadir Selvi, Hurriyet Daily News)






INDIA:

Nirbhaya Case: Violation of Fundamental Rights in Death Penalty, says SC Amicus 
Curiae----The trial court also refrained from stating individual reasons for 
death penalty to the convicts and instead a '1-penalty-fits-all' order was 
imposed, he added.


In the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case, a new turn has come up. The amicus curiae 
of Supreme Court, Raju Ramachandran has urged the apex court to set aside the 
sentence verdict given to 4 convicts. He also said that the given death 
sentence has violated the fundamental rights of these convicts.

He has also noted down 6 fundamental errors committed during trial court 
judgement which includes not taking into consideration the explanatory 
circumstances of the accused along with not hearing them in person about their 
punishment. According to the report of Ramachandran, this denies the fair trial 
to the accused and also violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Ramachandran also stated that the court has not make any genuine efforts to 
bring out the mitigating circumstances of the accused like their socio-economic 
conditions, mental health etc., which could have a bearing on their sentence. 
The trial court also refrained from stating individual reasons for death 
penalty to the convicts and instead a '1-penalty-fits-all' order was imposed, 
he added.

The said order was passed by the trial court on September 11, 2013 which was 
later confirmed by the Delhi High Court. The victim was a 23 year old 
paramedic, who was brutally gangraped by 6 persons in a moving bus in South 
Delhi on the night of 16 December 2012. The main accused of the crime, Ram 
Singh, was found dead in Tihar Jail in March 2013. A juvenile accused who was 
sentenced for 3 years in a reformation home was released in December 2015.

This gang rape has raised many questions on the safety measures for women in 
India and has forced the government to introduce new laws and provisions for 
crimes against women.

(source: tehelka.com)