[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 4


IRAN:

Iran, Which Executed Nearly 1,000 Last Year, Considers Cutting Back


Iran, which puts more people to death every year than any other country in the 
world but China, is debating a measure that could significantly cut the number 
of executions, local news outlets reported on Tuesday. But the bill seems 
certain to face considerable opposition from hard-liners in the judiciary.

A newly installed Parliament, thought to be more liberal than its predecessor 
but, until now, unwilling to take any unorthodox steps, is considering a bill 
that would abolish the death penalty for drug smugglers, who account for a 
large majority of those executed. While the government does not release figures 
on capital punishment, the local news media said that 950 people had been 
hanged in 2015. Human rights groups say the total could have been as high as 
1,500, and the United Nations put the number at nearly 1,000.

Possession of as little as 30 grams of heroin is enough under Iranian law to 
face execution by hanging. Nevertheless, drug addiction and smuggling are 
rampant, officials acknowledge.

"We want to eliminate the death penalty for those criminals who act out of 
desperation," Yahya Kamalpour, a reformist lawmaker, told the semiofficial ISNA 
news agency. "We need a scientific and not an emotional approach to this 
problem."

In a sign of changing attitudes toward capital punishment, public hangings have 
become rare, and those that do take place are usually sparsely attended.

Representatives of the conservative judiciary have signaled that they will 
resist any effort to change Iran's penal code, which they believe reflects 
Islamic values and culture. They emphasize that these values supersede even 
universal human rights and cannot be changed.

Anticipating the bill's introduction, the head of the judiciary, Sadegh 
Larijani, called criticism of capital punishment "inappropriate." Speaking with 
the semiofficial Fars news agency last week, he said, "If the judiciary had not 
taken a tough stance, the situation would have been very bad, and drugs would 
have been available even at traditional medicine stores."

Even if it were to win approval from the Parliament, the bill would still need 
to be confirmed by the Guardian Council, which is dominated by hard-liners. The 
position of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last 
word on such changes, is unclear.

Conservatives said they doubted that the measure could survive the determined 
opposition of the judiciary. "Be sure they won't accept such a bill when the 
judiciary opposes it," said Hamidreza Taraghi, an analyst with strong ties to 
the hard-line faction. "The only wish of the parliamentarians is to please the 
West."

The proposal is one of the first provocative plans to emerge from the new 
Parliament, which was installed in August after elections in May. Although no 
political faction holds a majority, the consensus was that the influence of 
hard-liners on the assembly was not as strong as it had been.

(source: New York Times)






MALAYSIA:

Let us pause to focus on how to end crime, not lives


I became opposed to the death penalty when I realised that many desperately 
poor people are being sentenced to death for drugs, that these were not crimes 
of malicious intent, but rather crimes of desperation, and that this penalty 
does not address the problem which it originally intended to address: 
problematic drug use and societal instability.

Currently we have 1,064people on death row for drug-related offences. They are 
on death row even though there is a growing recognition that their execution 
will not reduce the amount of drugs on the street. We know that because many 
executions have taken place already in the region. None have resulted in a fall 
off in drug use. On the contrary, data from the Indonesian Drug User Network 
(known by its Indonesian acronym PKNI) shows that after the 1st and 2nd wave of 
executions due to drug trafficking, drug use actually spiked.

The fact is, overwhelmingly, those sentenced to death for drug related offences 
are not running the drug business, and in the larger scheme of things, their 
execution has no impact on reducing the drug problems we face. We know their 
socio-economic status because as part of my work with Harm Reduction 
International four or five years ago, I collected data on the names, ages and 
employment status of the people sentenced to death for drugs in Malaysia. They 
sell vegetables at wet markets; they are car mechanics, food hawkers, or 
unemployed persons.

You don't see the sons or daughters of millionaires being arrested for drug 
trafficking, nor persons gainfully employed as doctors, lawyers, academics. 
That's not because people such people do not use or sell drugs, but because 
arresting them would result in more complications than arresting low-level 
street suppliers and drug mules.

Like law enforcement agents, the drug lords also target vulnerable people.

In the case of the vegetable seller arrested for transporting drugs - she'd 
been selling vegetables for 15-20 years in wet markets when she was targeted by 
drug lords. For someone who is struggling to feed and school children, and has 
earned less than the minimum wage for most of her life, the promise of RM50,000 
to carry drugs is a dream come true.

Do we want to sentence people to death for desperation? Is that the society we 
want to bequeath to the children we seek to protect?

The death penalty doesn't combat drug use, because it doesn't tackle poverty or 
the lack of human connections that are at the essence of social instability 
everywhere. In fact, it increases poverty, because it leaves families, 
children, without fathers and mothers. Without the necessary resources to 
support the children of incarcerated parents, and without the necessary 
resources to keep children in school, it's a vicious cycle.

I also know people on death row who are harmless, who haven't, and wouldn't, 
hurt anyone, who have cultivated cannabis plants for epilepsy patients who 
cannot tolerate pharmaceutical medicines. While the cultivation of cannabis 
plants is illegal in Malaysia, medical research elsewhere has proven the 
efficacy of cannabis for the reduction of epileptic seizures. Does this merit 
the death sentence?

A huge amount of money is spent to detect drug mules, and keep people in death 
row for years pending appeals. This effort cripples law enforcement agencies 
who could be focused on more serious crimes. Should we not, instead, use this 
money to tackle problematic drug use and instability in communities more 
effectively?

What would a more effective approach to our drug problems look like?

Firstly, noted addiction scholars like the late Griffith Edwards, Tom Babor, 
and others, have written that the threat of detection is a more effective 
deterrent than harsh punishment. People are more deterred if there is a high 
risk of being caught, than by a harsh punishment if apprehension seems highly 
unlikely. Currently, it is estimated that drug seizures don't even stop 1 % of 
drugs from reaching the street Moreover, an overwhelming increase in the 
trafficking of synthetic drugs means that drug mules are less and less 
relevant. These can be manufactured locally. For these, an increased police 
presence in general is more effective.

Secondly, Malaysia's approach to problematic drug use is compulsory detention. 
Voluntary rehabilitation, with evidence-based medicines such as methadone and 
buprenorphine, and social and welfare support, has been proven to be far more 
effective. Compulsory detention has a 90% rate of relapse, yet they continue to 
be method du jour.

Thirdly, and above all, we need to fund programs that would give people a way 
out of the desperation that makes them such easy targets. I don???t think there 
are any micro-financing courses, or financial literacy courses going on in 
prison. We do offer some vocational skills, like carpentry, that often keeps 
people in the lower-middle-income trap. But we could instead offer them the 
skills and support they need to make a comfortable living wage. I can think of 
little that would be more effective at helping them turn away from temptation 
when approached by the drug gangs, than a viable livelihood.

I realise that ours is a punitive culture. We believe in meting out harsh 
punishments, and it will require a massive culture change for us to think about 
understanding root causes and finding solutions. But if we truly want to solve 
social problems such as problematic drug use and trafficking of those drugs, we 
cannot keep on repeating the same ineffective policies forever.

Some members of our judiciary, and former judges too, come across as very 
sympathetic. This is especially so in terms of judges who have had to, against 
their individual consciences, sentence people to death for drugs. They want the 
inflexibility in the law removed. I hope our government and parliamentarians 
can understand that too. And I hope this will result in a shift away from 
mandatory death sentencing in Malaysia very soon.

It's important for us in Asean to work together against the death penalty, 
because people listen more when you're a larger group. We in ADPAN understand 
we need to think about the Asean perspective, and we welcome the voice of CADPA 
(Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in Asean) and their campaign 
to 'End Crime not Life'.

source: This is the personal opinion of the writer, Fifa Rahman, and does not 
necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online






EUROPEAN UNION:

EU strengthens trade rules against goods used for capital punishment and 
torture


The following press release was issued by the European Commission on October 4, 
2016

On the proposal of the European Commission, the European Parliament has today 
approved newrestrictions on certain services and revised rules on goods that 
could be used to apply the death penalty.

"Today's vote in the European Parliament underscores the importance the 
European Union attaches to respect for fundamental rights. As the European 
Union, we promote the global abolition of the death penalty with all the means, 
tools and instruments that are available to us", said the High Representative 
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European 
Commission, Federica Mogherini. "The eradication of torture as well as the 
abolition of the death penalty requires political will and a joint effort of 
parliaments and civil society across the world. Today we are demonstrating that 
our European Union has always been and will remain at the frontline of this 
work", she added.

"We can never accept loopholes that allow instruments of death and torture to 
be traded or promoted", said EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmstrom, 
adding: "From lethal drug injection systems to electric chairs or spiked 
batons, such terrible devices have no place in our societies. In addition to 
prohibiting sales and exports, we are now banning the promotion of these goods 
at fairs and exhibitions, and introducing a fast-track mechanism to make sure 
that new products of this kind can be banned quickly. It???s imperative that we 
can keep up with new developments."

The European Union adopted a Regulation to ban trade in certain goods which can 
only be used for capital punishment or torture and to impose export controls on 
goods that could be used to these ends already in 2005. In January 2014, the 
European Commission made a proposal to amend this legislation to further 
strengthen these rules. Following discussions both with and within the Council 
and the European Parliament, an agreement was reached within a trilogue. 
Following today's vote in the Parliament, the changes should now be approved by 
the Council and then the text amending the original Regulation (1236/2005) will 
be published in the Official Journal of the EU and become Union law.

Background

Respect for human rights is one of the core values of the European Union. It is 
also an essential element of the Union???s relations with third countries, 
including in trade. The Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits capital 
punishment, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Regulation 1236/2005 bans the export and import of goods which can only be used 
to apply the death penalty or to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment and punishment. The Regulation also imposes an export 
authorisation requirement on goods that could be used for the purpose of 
torture or other ill-treatment.

The strengthened text includes a specific set of rules for the export controls 
applied to prevent goods from being used for capital punishment in a third 
country. A Union general export authorisation, an exemption that can be invoked 
by any exporter, is foreseen for exports to countries that, like the EU Member 
States, have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Of course, this 
exemption is subject to a number of conditions which ensure that re-exports to 
other countries require prior approval. If the general exemption does not 
apply, exporters need to apply for prior authorisation, which may take the form 
of a global authorisation or an individual authorisation.

For the time being, these export controls apply to certain anaesthetics. A 
specific procedure empowers the European Commission to list additional goods 
that have been approved, or actually used, for capital punishment by 1 or more 
3rd countries. As usual scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council of 
the EU is foreseen, but in urgent cases the amendment can enter into force when 
the scrutiny phase begins.

As regards the supply of certain services, the Regulation bans, in relation to 
goods whose export and import is prohibited, the supply of brokering services, 
technical assistance and training on their use. The presentation of such goods 
in international trade fairs in the EU, and the international supply and 
purchase of advertising space or time are also prohibited.

If the export of goods requires an authorisation but is not prohibited, the 
supply of brokering services and technical assistance in relation to the 
relevant goods also requires an authorisation. In some cases, the general 
authorisation may apply to technical assistance. The definition of brokering 
services is the same as that used in Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 setting 
up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and 
transit of dual-use goods, but the new Regulation goes further and stipulates 
that an authorisation for brokering services is required whenever such services 
are supplied to a third country.

The Regulation also prohibits transit, which is defined as transport within the 
Union of non-Union goods which pass on their way to a destination in a third 
country. If the export of the relevant goods requires an authorisation but is 
not prohibited, the ban on transit applies if the transporter knows that the 
goods are intended to be used for capital punishment, torture or other 
ill-treatment.

(source: neweurope.eu)