[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 3




IRAN:

Iran Judiciary Chief Statement Sparks Fears of New Wave of Mass Executions of 
Drug Offenders in Iran

Iran's head of Judiciary, Sadegh Amoli Larijani, recently said that the 
Judiciary has no plans to abolish the death penalty and called on Iranian 
judicial officials to not hesitate in carrying out the execution sentences for 
alleged drug offenders. Amoli Larijani's official remarks were made on Thursday 
September 29 in Mashhad, at the 13th annual conference for Iran's 
revolutionary, military and public courts.

According to Iranian state run media, Fars, in his remarks Amoli Larijani 
referred to drug traffickers as "merchants of death" and rejected calls for the 
complete abolition of the death penalty for crimes related to drug trafficking. 
"Executions are not necessarily desirable, but narcotics are a great detriment 
to society and also shatter families. We have no choice but to confront the 
issue quickly, swiftly, firmly, and decisively. We want prosecutors in the 
country to not to hesitate in implementing the (death) sentences," said Amoli 
Larijani. "We should not wait 3 years (before carrying out the execution 
sentences), until the prisoner learns how to pray in order to get amnesty...It 
is offensive to say that the death penalty is ineffective. If it wasn't for the 
strictness of the Judiciary, the situation would be much worse."

Amoli Larijani's execution order comes 2 weeks after Mohammad Javad Larijani, 
Iran's chief of the Judiciary's "human rights council", visited several 
countries in Europe, including Italy, for human rights dialogue with European 
officials.

Just last month, the deputy of the Judiciary Chief, Mohammad Bagher Olfat, said 
that executing drug offenders in Iran has not decreased the volume of drugs: 
"The reality is that the death penalty for drug traffickers has not acted as a 
deterrent so far. We fought against many drug traffickers in accordance to the 
law, but, unfortunately, the volume of drugs entering and transiting through 
the country has increased...It is important to note that the individuals who 
are being executed are not the main drug traffickers, because the main drug 
traffickers are not involved in the shipment of drugs."

Iran Human Rights warns against mass executon of drug offenders after the 
Judiciary chief's statements. "Iran may be entering a new period of a high 
number of executions," says Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson for Iran 
Human Rights. In 2015, Iranian authorities executed nearly 1000 people on Sadeq 
Amoli Larijani's orders. According to Iran Human Rights, majority of the 
prisoners were executed on drug-related charges.

"When the Judiciary Chief instructs prosecuters to not hesitate in carrying out 
the execution sentences for drug offenders or to wait until the prisoners gain 
eligibility for amnesty, he is actually giving the execution order of thousands 
of prisoners at a much higher speed than before. The international community 
must take Mr. Larijani's execution order seriously. One option is that the 
UNODC could halt its anti-narcotic cooperation with Iran," says 
Amiry-Moghaddam. "While several top Iranian officials, among them Mr. Olfat, 
have admitted that executions are not a deterrent against drugs, Mr. Amoli 
Larijani, without presenting any new evidence, has claimed the opposite."

According to Iran Human Rights, Iranian authorities have executed at least 65 
people in the past month. 51 of these executions were reportedly carried out 
for drug-related offenses.

(source: Iran Human Rights)

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

People in Ahvaz protest against execution of 2 youths


On Thursday, September 29, a group of Ahvazi youths staged a protest at night 
against the Iranian regime by setting up fire and chanting anti-government 
slogans in Enqelab Avenue in the south-western city of Ahvaz to show their 
protest against the execution of 2 young ethnic Arabs of the city.

The 2 youths were Adnan Mazban al-Amouri and Ali Sharif al-Amouri, residents of 
Ghaleh Chan'an in Khuzestan province (south-western Iran), who were executed on 
Wednesday September 28 in Gohardasht Prison (north-west of Tehran) allegedly on 
the charges of "armed robbery" and "acting against national security."

According to the regime's state-run Tasnim news agency, these two young people 
were charged with "Moharebeh (enmity against God)" and sentenced to death by 
Branch 15 of Tehran's revolutionary court. Their sentences were then confirmed 
by Branch 14 of Supreme Court and implemented on Wednesday morning in 
Gohardasht (Rajai-Shahr) Prison in Karaj.

1 of the relatives of the al-Amouris pointed out that the men did not receive 
due process and there was discrimination in the implementation of the sentence. 
The relative said: "Discrimination is evident in all the affairs of this 
country. Why the 1st and 2nd row defendants were not executed but the 3rd and 
4th row defendants were executed, because they were Arabs."

He continued: "We protested against the sentence in all (government) 
institutions but corruption and bribery have penetrated everywhere and we were 
not able to pay the brokers and intermediaries."

(source: NCR-Iran)






SINGAPORE:

Maintaining the legitimacy of capital punishment in S'pore


In clockwork fashion since 2008, the United Nations General Assembly has 
deliberated every 2 years the question of a moratorium on the use of the death 
penalty, with a view to abolishing it. As the death penalty remains in our 
statutes, Singapore is a prominent retentionist state in the serious debate on 
the death penalty.

Last month, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan put forth Singapore's 
"contrarian views" on the death penalty at a high-level side event at the 
assembly.

Noting that the debate is a "heated, painful and emotional one", he affirmed 
Singapore's belief that "all human life is sacred" and the paramount objective 
to protect all human life.

Like his predecessor in 2014, he posited that the relevant question in the 
debate on the death penalty was "whether in very limited circumstances, it is 
legitimate to have the death penalty so that the larger interest of society is 
served".

Thus, the rights of the offenders must be weighed against the rights of the 
victims and their families, and the "broader rights of the community and 
society to live in peace and security".

Dr Balakrishnan stated that capital punishment for certain drug-related 
offences and for murder is a "key element" in keeping Singapore drug-free and 
safe. He reiterated that every state has the sovereign right and duty "to 
decide for itself what works, and to take into account its own circumstances".

We must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of life even as we calibrate 
the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between those who commit 
serious crimes, and the victims and their families, and the rest of society.

Singapore's position on the death penalty is more nuanced than the 
abolitionists' austere characterisation of states that retain it as essentially 
having an abiding commitment to the death penalty. In 2012, Parliament made 
significant amendments to the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, marking a 
shift from the longstanding mandatory to a discretionary death penalty system.

In murder where the killing was unintentional, the court has the discretion to 
sentence the accused to death or life imprisonment. The court may also order 
caning in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment.

Similarly, the Act provides that if a person was convicted of drug trafficking, 
the death penalty would not be imposed if two conditions are fulfilled. First, 
he must have only been a courier, not involved in any other activity related to 
the supply or distribution of drugs. Second, he had substantively cooperated 
with the Central Narcotics Bureau, or he has a mental disability, which 
substantially impaired his appreciation of the gravity of drug trafficking.

These amendments do not lessen the severity of drug trafficking offences. They, 
however, recognise that couriers, a crucial part of the illicit drugs supply 
chain, are morally less culpable than the drug syndicate leaders who direct 
drug couriers. Executing drug mules will not deal with the root causes of the 
serious crime of drug trafficking.

The Government has determined that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) may not be 
needed for all types of serious crimes. This is an important first step, 
notwithstanding the attraction and force of the MDP was its unequivocal 
demonstration of zero tolerance and resolve in maximum deterrence.

Yet, the shift to the discretionary death penalty regime should not be 
misconstrued as Singapore letting up on drug trafficking and murders. Instead, 
this shift was necessary to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our 
administration of criminal justice.

Giving our Supreme Court judges the discretion in sentencing empowers them to 
weigh the relevant factors and the mitigating circumstances, and to 
individualise sentencing. By tempering justice with mercy, the punishment meted 
out can better fit the crime, and offenders given a second chance in 
appropriate cases.

To be sure, there are increasing - and more strident - calls for the complete 
abolishment of the death penalty. In the past few years, the UN Special 
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment has urged UN member states to consider whether the death penalty 
fails to respect the inherent dignity of the person, causes severe mental and 
physical pain and suffering, and amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or 
degrading punishment.

Singapore has rejected the link between the death penalty and torture, cruel, 
inhuman and degrading treatment.

The European Union and the UN have called for a moratorium on the use of the 
death penalty. The moratorium has gained traction, as shown by the voting 
records at the UN assembly. In 2014, the draft on the moratorium on the use of 
the death penalty was adopted with a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 37 
against, with 34 abstentions. In 2012, it was 110-39-36. In 2010, it was 
107-38-36.

Singapore has consistently voted against the resolution on the moratorium on 
the use of the death penalty.

Besides Singapore, the list of retentionist states include Afghanistan, China, 
India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Nevertheless, 
Singapore has not ignored or disregarded the international developments. While 
there is still no international consensus against the death penalty, the list 
of abolitionist states grows slowly but surely, suggesting that there might be 
inexorable movement towards its abolition.

Singapore's execution figures have declined significantly since the 1990s but 
the overall crime situation has not worsened; in many respects, it has 
improved. Could our tough stance on crime continue to work well without the 
death penalty?

Given the conflicting empirical data elsewhere, however, both abolitionists and 
retentionists have immense difficulties proving their case persuasively and 
compellingly. Statistics alone will not resolve the deep divide between the 2 
camps.

The Singapore Court of Appeal has consistently ruled that the MDP is 
constitutional and not in breach of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 
Singapore Constitution. On whether capital punishment legislation should be 
modified or repealed, it took the view that these "policy issues ... in the 
exercise of its legislative powers ... is for Parliament, and not the courts, 
to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of 
punishment for serious criminal offences".

I regard the discretionary death penalty regime as a determined expression at 
maintaining the legitimacy of our capital punishment regime. More 
significantly, it manifests our ability to get out of the force of habit, 
convenience, and reliance on our long-held dogma that the MDP is necessary to 
deal with the most serious crimes.

There is, as yet, no public clamour in Singapore for abolishing the death 
penalty. While there is no authoritative study on public attitudes towards the 
death penalty, various past surveys point to support for its retention. There 
appears to be healthy public trust and confidence that the death penalty regime 
in Singapore has the requisite deterrent effect on criminals and has sufficient 
safeguards.

Nonetheless, the authorities face the continuing imperative of demonstrating 
that the death penalty regime works well and is in accord with societal values 
and norms. In this regard, we must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of 
life even as we calibrate the appropriate balance of rights and 
responsibilities between those who commit serious crimes, and the victims and 
their families, and the rest of society.

Regular and robust reviews are necessary to evaluate the need and use of the 
death penalty as an integral part of the administration of criminal justice in 
Singapore.

Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining 
features of our society.

Keeping our criminal justice system relevant and legitimate in the face of 
changing realities and the rapidly evolving crime situation is vital in 
maintaining public confidence, while also keeping faith with the values that 
Singaporeans regard as important.

(source: Eugene K.B. Tan; The writer is associate professor of law at the 
Singapore Management University School of Law----The Striats Times)






INDIA:

Supreme Court Confirms Death Penalty To Serial Killer BA Umesh


The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed death penalty to serial killer BA Umesh. 
The court's division bench dismissed his review petition.

The apex court said, "Dismissed his plea for review of death penalty."

Earlier Karnataka High Court had also confirmed BA Umesh's death penalty.

The former CRPF constable was arrested for the rape and murder of Jayashree 
Maradi Subbaiah, 37, and sentenced to death by a fast-track court in 2006. His 
mercy plea was rejected by the President on May 12, 2013.

(source: News World India)