[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 26




UNITED KINGDOM:

Death row artist's work on show at Bridport Arts Centre


An art exhibition depicting the practice and history of capital punishment by 
an artist awaiting execution is now on display at Bridport Arts Centre.

'Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides' comprises work by Kenneth 'Kenny' Reams, who 
has been on death row in Arkansas since 1993 for a crime he committed when he 
was 18-years-old.

The exhibition is a key component of 'Art for Amicus' a series of exhibitions 
by artists awaiting execution across the US.

More than 50 works of art are on display, including pencil drawings, acrylic 
paintings and several installations.

The aims of his exhibition and of Art for Amicus are to highlight the 
importance of art to those in difficult circumstances and to raise awareness of 
the human rights issues surrounding the use of the death penalty.

Kenny's mother was only 15 when she gave birth to him. She suffered mental 
health issues and there was alcohol and substance abuse in the household and 
his father had no contact with him.

Kenny left home at 13, falling in with a group of older offenders in a small, 
crime-ridden town. In 1993, aged 18, he was arrested with a friend in 
connection with a hold-up at gun point and the victim had been shot dead by a 
single bullet. Kenny did not pull the trigger but has otherwise never denied 
involvement.

Both Kenny and his co-defendant were offered a plea deal - a life sentence 
without the possibility of parole for a guilty plea. Kenny stood trial, not 
believing his role justified life imprisonment, let alone execution, while his 
co-defendant accepted the deal.

However, Kenny was sentenced to death and at the time he was the youngest death 
row inmate in Arkansas.

He started to draw whilst in prison, a talent which he had always had but never 
developed.

Bringing Kenny's message and art to the UK was the brainchild of barrister 
Samantha Knights, who first met Kenny in 2000 during a capital defence 
internship with Amicus. He would write to her and send pencil drawings and 
Samantha began to send him art materials.

In 2014, Kenny's work was exhibited in Little Rock, the capital of Arkansas, 
and Samantha suggested a UK exhibition.

She said: "Through the medium of art it is hoped that people will reflect on 
issues of crime and punishment, not just how it is carried out in the US but 
also more generally. That is what Kenny hopes to achieve through this 
exhibition."

Amicus is a legal charity that fights for justice on US death rows and helps to 
provide legal assistance to those facing execution.

Kenny Reams' exhibition is at Bridport Arts Centre until November 26th.

(source: viewnews.co.uk)






PAKISTAN----impending execution

Pak to execute mentally ill prisoner next week


Pakistan court upholds life sentence for political activistPakistan arrests 7 
over attacks on court, Christian colonyPakistan court bails women jailed for 
'vulgar' textsPakistan court delays hanging of mentally-ill manPakistan court 
adjourns case of British woman's murder

Pakistan has decided to execute a mentally ill prisoner on November 2 after the 
Supreme Court rejected his final appeal, ruling that schizophrenia cannot be a 
ground for halting a death penalty as it does not qualify as a mental disorder 
under the Mental Health laws.

"The death warrant for mentally ill condemned prisoner Imdad Ali has been 
issued by the Sessions Court upon the request of the Government of Punjab. He 
will be executed on November 2," said Justice Project Pakistan in a statement.

Imdad Ali, who was sentenced to death in 2001 over a shooting, was to be 
executed on July 26 but his wife filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court 
to delay her husband's hanging as he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

The high court rejected her plea on August 23, forcing the wife to approach the 
Supreme Court.

However, last week, the Supreme Court rejected the plea, ruling that 
schizophrenia does not qualify as a mental disorder under the Mental Health 
laws.

Pakistan's apex court cited the judgment of India's Supreme Court in 1976 case 
of Amrit Bhishan Gupta vs the Union of India in which the court had rejected a 
petition to stop execution of a man suffering from schizophrenia.

The apex court's ruling triggered a massive outcry by local and international 
human rights groups.

Pakistan's Ministry of Human Rights, also sent a letter advising Interior 
Ministry to stay the execution on humanitarian grounds, according to JPP.

A mercy petition was filed by Ali's family and his lawyers to President Mamnoon 
Hussain on September 19, but it is still pending with his office.

Pakistan has signed international agreements which prohibit the execution of 
mentally ill prisoners.

(source: Business Standard)






CHINA:

China's farmer nail gun killer Jia Jinglong gains popular support after death 
sentence


2 years after the leaders of his village razed his home to make way for new 
development, farmer Jia Jinglong took his revenge with a nail gun.

In a country that bans personal ownership of firearms, Jia modified a nail gun 
and used it to shoot and kill the local chief, who he believed ordered the 
demolition without adequately compensating him. He was tried and sentenced to 
death.

But days after China's highest court gave the go-ahead for his execution, Jia's 
case has sparked an outcry from those who say it exemplifies the stark 
powerlessness of ordinary Chinese when faced against government officials. Even 
s state-run newspapers have rallied to Jia's defense, publishing articles 
calling for Jia to be spared.

Jia's village on the outskirts of the northern city of Shijiazhuang is 
overwhelmed by a cacophony of drilling, pounding and jack-hammering coming from 
construction sites. More than a dozen cranes could be seen in the distance, 
adjacent to high-rise apartment towers still being built, as families walked on 
the street and vendors pushed carts bearing fruit and bottles of water.

Jia's family was offered a unit in one of these high-rises when officials 
wanted to take their home and demolish it, along with what Jia's sister said 
was a small amount of monetary compensation. The family was one of the few to 
refuse. They ended up losing their home and getting a small unit - but no extra 
money.

Sitting in a tea shop in Shijiazhuang, Jia Jingyuan said the outpouring of 
support for her brother showed that his plight resonated. "Because my brother 
is part of this society's underclass, he represents the lives of many ordinary 
people," Jia Jingyuan told The Associated Press.

"What he has experienced is what many are going through or will be going 
through," she said. "There is a lot of injustice in society and people's basic 
rights haven't been upheld."

To some observers, the case illustrates the growing chasm between the Communist 
Party's claims that it guarantees the protection of basic rights under the rule 
of law and the everyday reality in which land seizures are common and 
corruption remains endemic.

The China Daily addressed the issue in unusually frank terms this week.

"As in many similar cases, Jia used to be an ordinary citizen concerned 
primarily about living a normal life," the newspaper said. "Like others who 
ended up desperate, vengeful and hurting themselves and others to have their 
injustices noticed, Jia would probably not have acted as he did if his loss had 
been properly taken care of."

The Global Times, a nationalist state-run newspaper, also published an article 
quoting Chinese legal experts "demanding a halt to the execution." And 
commenters on Chinese social media called for further review of his case.

The Supreme People's Court, which automatically reviews all death sentences 
handed down by Chinese courts, did not immediately respond to a request for 
comment.

China is believed to execute more people than any other country, though the 
total number and most details about executions are considered a state secret. 
That system now faces a rare, public test, said Maya Wang, a researcher on 
China for Human Rights Watch.

"On the one hand, if it doesn't approve the death penalty, it would seem to be 
soft on a case in which an ordinary citizen has killed an official," Wang said. 
"On the other hand, if it approves the death penalty, it will heighten the 
sense of injustice that the public already feels against the criminal justice 
system."

Disputes over land seizures are one of the greatest sources of unrest in China, 
where breakneck development and weak legal support has led to officials 
evicting residents with little or no compensation and suppressing protests, 
often violently.

Local governments are heavily reliant on land sales for revenue, resulting in 
the common use of strong-arm tactics in housing demolitions. Officials 
sometimes collude with real estate developers to pocket generous kickbacks for 
themselves, giving them more incentive to force out residents from their homes. 
The central government has made efforts to try to raise the incomes of rural 
workers and give farmers more compensation for land seized from them, but 
progress is slow.

According to Jia's lawyers, village officials in northern China???s Hebei 
province decided to seize and demolish his home on May 7, 2013 - 18 days before 
he was set to be married. The day of the razing, Jia was dragged out of the 
home and beaten in front of other villagers. Jia refused to accept the 
apartment that the government allotted them and chose to rent his own place 
separately.

Without a home, the family of his fiancee called off the wedding - a move that 
highlights the increasingly common expectation in China that prospective 
husbands should be homeowners.

"An ordinary farmer suddenly became a person without property and with no hope 
after the demolition," said one of his lawyers, Zhao Xiaoliang.

Like most villagers in his scenario, Jia had little recourse under the law.

Like scores of other ordinary Chinese people seeking help for their grievances, 
Jia submitted appeal after appeal to various levels of government offices that 
receive such petitions, but was unsuccessful. Such appeals often fail even 
though the practice dates to China's centuries-old ruling dynasties, and some 
provinces - to avoid any recrimination from the central government - are known 
to hire agents who find and detain petitioners and send them back home.

Jia's sister and his lawyers don't dispute that he purchased and modified a 
nail gun that he used to shoot He Jianhua, the party secretary. Jia turned 
himself in shortly afterward.

Zhao, who represented him at trial, said he tried to show the court a video of 
the demolition of the home, but was refused.

The case eventually made it to the Supreme People's Court. According to Wei 
Rujiu, Jia's appellate lawyer, the high court gave him just 5 days to assemble 
and present evidence in Jia's defense, and took 14 days total before it 
affirmed the death sentence last week.

Wei spoke to Jia on Sunday and said he wasn't sure when the execution would be 
carried out. Jia's sister presented a new request to the court on Monday asking 
for the sentence to be commuted.

"I believe that it is possible to see a suspension because many warm-hearted 
people are making efforts toward that end," she told The Associated Press.

(source: CBS news)






SINGAPORE:

The logic of Singapore's death penalty for drugs is untenable


When one advocates for the abolishment of the death penalty, any perceived 
retreat from capital punishment can seem like a victory. Any change that allows 
for lives to be saved from the execution chamber is a positive one. But there 
are times when the shifts made are not only inadequate, but throw up more 
questions and problems to be resolved.

In November 2012, the Parliament of Singapore made amendments to the mandatory 
death penalty regime. Before then, the death penalty for drug trafficking was 
completely mandatory; an individual found guilty of trafficking under the 
Misuse of Drugs Act could only be put to death, with the judge unable to 
consider any mitigating circumstances.

The amendments allow for a tiny bit of leeway: if the offender is merely a 
courier, and has offered "substantive cooperation" to the authorities, the 
judge has a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment with caning.

The almost-immediate impact of these amendments was that Yong Vui Kong, a young 
Malaysian man convicted of trafficking a little over 40 grams of heroin, was 
saved. The campaign for his life had been sustained and high-profile in both 
Singapore and Malaysia; for those of us who had put in time and energy, knowing 
that Vui Kong would not hang was a huge relief, and validation of all our 
efforts.

But our celebrations could only go so far. Apart from the application of 
judicial corporal punishment (on top of life imprisonment) that replaced Vui 
Kong's death sentence, our continued work on the death penalty has revealed 
many more causes for concern triggered by these amendments.

Speaking at a high-level side event at the United Nations' General Assembly on 
21 September, Singapore's Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan 
defended the city-state's use of the death penalty.

"[The death penalty] is applied only and strictly in the context of an 
unwavering commitment to the rule of law. In fact, you could argue that a 
prerequisite is an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, resting on a 
strong and independent judiciary," he said. "There must be fair and transparent 
laws and due process ... Capital punishment is carried out only after due 
judicial process and in accordance with the law."

It's true that the death penalty in Singapore is administered in accordance 
with the law. But my experience following capital cases and working with the 
families of death row inmates has shown me that working in accordance with the 
law does not fully address issues with the death penalty regime, because it is 
the legislation itself that is problematic.

The reality is different.

When the amendments were first made, there were many who saw it as an end to 
the mandatory death penalty. The reality is different: we still have the 
mandatory death penalty, only there's now a little wriggle room for judges to 
exercise a very limited discretion - choosing between death and life with 
caning - in a very narrow set of circumstances. The judiciary might be strong 
and independent, but it still doesn???t get to exercise full discretion when it 
comes to the death penalty for drug trafficking.

Where the discretion really lies is with the prosecution, because it's the 
prosecution that chooses whether or not to issue a Certificate of Cooperation. 
A refusal to issue this certificate, to indicate that the individual had 
"substantively" cooperated with the authorities, means that the judge will 
still have no discretion in sentencing, even if it was established that the 
individual was merely a courier or a mule.

Although the minister himself emphasised the need for "fair and transparent 
laws and due process", the process behind the issuing of a Certificate of 
Cooperation remains opaque and lacks accountability. There is little clarity 
and understanding of how the prosecution makes the decision on whether or not 
to issue such a certificate; in the case of Cheong Chun Yin, the prosecution 
had initially denied him the certificate, then abruptly changed its mind. What 
changed? We don't know.

It's also possible for 2 co-accused persons to receive differentiated treatment 
even if both provided what information they had to the authorities, as in the 
case of Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali and Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim. Abdul 
Haleem was granted a certificate and was therefore able to escape the gallows, 
but Ridzuan is still on death row today. What caused the prosecution to decide 
to grant one a certificate and not the other? We don't know. The prosecution's 
decision whether or not to grant a certificate is not subject to judicial 
review unless one can prove malice or bad faith. It's a very high bar that 
perpetuates the lack of clarity in relation to this serious issue of life and 
death.

The very logic of such a system is untenable.

But one can go even beyond that and argue, as I do, that the very logic of such 
a system is untenable. As it stands, Singapore's death penalty for drugs means 
that any low-level courier or drug mule convicted of trafficking above a 
certain amount is bound for the gallows, unless he/she is of use to the 
prosecution. It's a philosophy that sees an individual's right to life not as a 
fundamental right, but as a privilege that can be taken away unless the 
authorities are appeased - hardly a reflection of minister Balakrishnan's claim 
that "all human life is sacred", or that the death penalty is used only "in the 
proper context and in strictly limited circumstances".

In this latest addition to the long list of retentionist speeches given by 
various members of Singapore's government, the foreign affairs minister 
outlined lofty ideals, such as the sanctity of life, and crucial requirements, 
such as fairness and transparency in the administration of justice. These are 
certainly important values for societies around the world to uphold, but the 
systemic application of the death penalty in Singapore consistently falls 
short.

(source: This article is published as part of an editorial partnership between 
openDemocracy and CELS, an Argentine human rights organisation with a broad 
agenda that includes advocating for drug policies respectful of human rights. 
The partnership coincides with the United Nations General Assembly Special 
Session (UNGASS) on drugs----Kirsten Han, opendemocracy.net)






KENYA:

EU praises Kenya, encourages legal end to death penalty


The European Union and the member-state diplomats in Kenya have praised 
President Uhuru Kenyatta's decision to commute all death sentences for more 
than 2,700 inmates who remained on death row.

Kenyatta announced the decision and held a signing ceremony on Monday 
afternoon. The prisoners will now serve life sentences, a move welcomed by the 
EU Heads of Mission in Kenya and others.

"President Kenyatta's action reaffirms Kenya's position as one of the large and 
growing majority of countries around the world to have ended the use of the 
death penalty in law or in practice," the EU statement issued Wednesday said. 
The EU also welcomed steps by the African Union toward adopting an Additional 
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Abolition 
of the Death Penalty.

As of January 2016, Kenya was listed among African nations that still have 
legal capital punishment but rarely use it in practice. Those nations also 
include Niger, Ghana, and the Central African Republic.

The general trend in the continent of Africa is to abolish the death penalty, 
according to FIACAT, a global NGO focused on ending torture and the death 
penalty that works with the ACHPR. Most AU member states, including South 
Africa, Senegal and Benin, have legally ended the death penalty, while 17 
nations retain both death penalty laws and practice. They include Sudan, 
Ethiopia and Uganda.

"As friends of Kenya," the EU diplomats said, "it is our hope that President 
Kenyatta's decision will turn out to be an important step towards the de jure 
abolishment of capital punishment in Kenya as well."

(source: The Nation)






NIGERIA:

Senate, lawyers advocate stiffer penalty for drug pushers


She was a dream child. Brilliant and highly religious. Popularly called Alhaja, 
she was brought up in a humble home, where she learnt sound moral values. Fate, 
however, played a fast one, when, at a social function, she met this dashing 
youngman. She fell in love and love led her to drugs. She had no idea that this 
chance meeting would lead to her end. One day, she was caught with drugs on her 
way to India.

Today, Alhaja is a story told. She is one of the thousands of Nigerians rotting 
in foreign jails, as a result of drugs. Only in July, Indonesia executed 4 
convicted drug traffickers, including three Nigerians. Izuchukwu F. Ezimoha, 
one of the Nigerians killed, was, however, given a heroic burial by his people 
of Ezigbo, Ihiala Local Council of Anambra State in August.

Worried about the increasing rate of drug trafficking and its consequences on 
the country's image, the Nigeria Senate is taking a critical look at the 
National Law Drug Enforcement Agency Act CAP N 30, 2004, with the view to 
amending it for stiffer penalty.

The country actually flagged off its narcotic control efforts in 1935, when the 
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance was enacted to control drug trafficking and abuse. 
Subsequent governments made concerted efforts to stay on top of the drug 
problem.

In 1984, Nigeria recorded a landmark effort when the Federal Military 
Government, of Gen. Muhammadu Buhari/Tunde Idiagbon promulgated the Special 
Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree No. 20 of 1984 to frontally confront 
drug trafficking within the Nigerian shores. Section 3 (2) (K) of the Decree 
provided that "any person who, without lawful authority deals in, sell, smoke 
or inhale the drug known as cocaine or other similar drugs shall be guilty 
under section 6 (3) (K) of an offence and liable on conviction to suffer death 
sentence by firing squad."

However, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who took over power in August 1985, the law 
amended the Decree by expunging the death penalty clause, while substituting it 
with imprisonment terms ranging from 2 years to life.

Based on a recent data gathered by Legal Defense and Assistance Project 
(LEDAP), almost 300 Nigerians are currently on death row in prisons across 
Asia.

According to Mr. Chinonye Obiagwu, the data independently collected by LEPAD 
revealed that 120 Nigerians face the prospects of death in Chinese prisons, and 
over 170 in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and 5 in Qatar, United Arab 
Emirate and Saudi Arabia. He estimated that about 16,500 Nigerians were being 
held abroad while most of those on death row were convicted of drug-related 
crimes.

Leading the debate to amend the NDLEA Act, Senator Gbenga Ashafa, who 
represents Lagos East on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC), 
expressed concern over the manner Nigerian judiciary has been handing light 
judgment on drug traffickers despite what the agency's law stipulate.

While presenting the Bill at the floor of the Senate recently, the lawmaker 
said, "the NDLEA law provides for stringent penalties for persons involved in 
the importation and exportation of hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin, sell 
or buy hard drugs or knowingly possess or use hard drugs. These penalties range 
from life imprisonment to 15 years, which is the minimum penalty.

"In the case of Odeh V Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008), the Supreme Court 
held that the minimum penalty for those dealing in such drugs is a term of 15 
years.

"The Act specifically stipulates the maximum sentence of 'life imprisonment and 
minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for the above-mentioned offences in 
the Act.' There is nowhere in the provisions of the NDLEA Act that gives to 
judges discretionary power to reduce the minimum sentence stipulated in the 
Act."

Ashafa lamented that rather than a minimum term of 15 years or maximum of life 
imprisonment as stipulated in the Act, for some unknown reasons, some judges of 
the Federal High Court have continued to pass varied/discretionary sentences 
short of the what is prescribed by the NDLEA Act.

Buttressing his argument, the Lagos lawmaker, who said the rate at which the 
image of the country is being brought to disrepute over drug related offences 
must be checked drastically at home.

Citing some instances, he said, "a welder, Shola Adeitan 32, and a scavenger, 
Bello Adam, 37, were sentenced to 5 and 2 years' imprisonment respectively, for 
dealing in cocaine and marijuana. The judgment of the court was published 
online on September 27, 2016. A 19-year-old Pakistani, Iftikhar Arslan, was in 
2015, sentenced to 18 months in prison by a Justice of the Federal High Court, 
Lagos, for importing 25. 4kg of heroin while another 38-year-old businessman, a 
Federal High Court in Lagos sentenced Chibueze Onedigbo, in 2015, to 10 years 
imprisonment for drug trafficking."

He added: "Despite the fact that when some of the judges pass these light terms 
of imprisonment, the convicts in some cases are further given options of fines, 
which is only available for accused persons found guilty of obstruction of the 
Agency or authorised officers, not for actual perpetuators of the offence."

Ashafa decried some arbitrariness by the trial judges by not following the 
provisions of the NDLEA Act clearly, which he said could lead to corrupt 
practices. "As a matter of fact, it only encourages illicit drug practices."

According to Ikechukwu Ikeji, a legal practitioner, the country needs stiffer 
penalties to stem the growing penchant for drug trafficking. However, he 
warned, "there is no use providing stiffer penalties when the judicial and 
criminal process is defective. No matter how stiff the penalty, if good 
investigative and procedural institutional safeguards are not put in place, the 
problem will still persist.

"Most times, it is not the punishment provision that is lacking but the poor 
investigative and prosecutorial system required to ensure justice. So you see 
culprits escaping justice because the investigator did a shoddy job or the 
prosecutor was below par and the defiance was good."

In another reaction, former chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja 
branch, Monday Ubani, said with consideration of the effect of drug in the 
society, he is in support of a stiffer penalty against drug related offences.

His words: "Given the dangerous effect of drug in the society and the health 
implications as a result of usage, any law that will imposed a stiffer penalty 
should be encouraged."

He also advised that the Senate should also propose similar laws against 
corruption. This according to him is very important going by the negative 
effect on the nation economy.

Another lawyer, Charles Lambo, said by virtue of Section 4 of the Constitution, 
it is the Senate that is vested with the responsibility of making laws. "If 
then, the Senate consider the punishment prescribed for drug offences as too 
mild, it has the right to amend it, most especially, the punitive aspect of the 
laws," he said.

Lambo also said, "if we compare the NDLEA Acts and the entire drug laws in 
Nigeria with other countries Laws, one will see that Nigerian drug laws are 
very mild. Adding that it is the more reason why people are into it.

"It will be a welcome development if the Senate makes the laws stiffer to deter 
people from involving in drug."

Also speaking on the matter, Oluwole Kehinde, a lawyer, said there was nothing 
wrong with the proposal. "No punishment is too high for drug traffickers, 
because they are the nursing mothers of hardened criminals. However, death 
penalty is no longer fashionable. Subject to that caution, I support the move."

Ashafa, therefore, appealed to his fellow lawmakers, particularly, the 
President of Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, to consider the necessity of adopting 
his proposed amendment, which he noted would close any loophole by having a 
clear, unambiguous and unequivocal provision that judges cannot vary the 
sentences provided by the Act.

According to him, "As the news of these light sentences spread, more people are 
encouraged to go into the drug trade, hence the phenomenal rise in the number 
of youths engaged in the illicit abuse of narcotic substances and of course 
this also contributes to the negative image of our country in the international 
community."

He also pointed out another minor but significant error in the principal Act, 
saying: "The word "heroin" was mis-spelt as "heroine". The 2 words means 
different things and are not synonymous.

"An amendment is therefore being proposed to change the word "heroine" which 
means a female protagonist in a work of fiction or female hero to "heroin" 
which means an addictive narcotic derived from morphine which is intended in 
the Act."

Lastly, the Bill also sought an amendment concerning the penalty for 
obstructing NDLEA or its authorised officers in the exercise of any of the 
powers conferred on it.

"The principal Act imposes a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to a 
fine of N20, 000 or both. The amendment is seeking to increase the option of 
fine from N20, 000 to N100, 000 because the economic reality in Nigeria today 
has rendered the N20, 000 fine paltry and unrealistic."

(source: guardian.ng)