[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 6




PAKISTAN:

JI demands death penalty for adulterators


Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Karachi chief Engineer Hafiz Naeemur Rahman has demanded 
the government to legislate so that those adulterating medicines and other 
commodities could be given capital punishment.

Naeem expressed deep concern over the news that the government had failed to 
curb adulteration of milk, medicines and food items.

Lashing out at the state-run watchdogs, the JI leader noted that it was a 
matter of grave concern for the citizens. He added that despite the fact that 
media had unearthed these elements several times, but the government failed to 
take any solid measure to bring this nefarious practice to an end.

He lamented that although Consumers Protection Act had been passed in 2015, it 
was yet to be implemented.

He also demanded the government to set up consumer courts.

Naeem was of the view that decision on the cases related to adulteration should 
be pronounced within 30 days.

He further said that JI's Public Aid Committee had set up a especial cell for 
the protection of consumers' rights.

He added that if needed, JI would take to streets in this regard.

(source: nation.com.pk)

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

The love of hanging


Pakistan chose to vote against the recent resolution in the United Nations 
General Assembly that had called for a global moratorium on the death penalty 
and was adopted by a majority of member-states.

The gist of this resolution has been adopted by the UN General Assembly every 2 
years since 2007. The resolution adopted on Dec 19, 2016 was backed by 117 
states, while 40 voted against it and 31 abstained. As against the voting 
pattern in 2014, the new supporters of the moratorium call were Guinea, Malawi, 
Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Swaziland.

South Asia maintained its fondness for the death penalty as Pakistan joined 
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Maldives in rejecting a universal 
moratorium, while Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka voted in favour.

Those who defend the death penalty as a principle enjoined by Islam may look at 
the division among the Muslim states (the category includes all members of the 
OIC).

Those voting in favour of a moratorium included: Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, 
Benin, Bosnia Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Gabon, 
Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kazakh???stan, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Mozambique, Sierra 
Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Togo, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and 
Uzbekistan.

Those who abstained included: Bahrain, Cameroon, Comoros, Djibouti, Indonesia, 
Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda and the UAE.

The Muslim states that voted against were: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, 
Egypt, Guyana, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, 
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

We find that 24 of the OIC's 57 member states voted in favour of the 
moratorium, while 13 abstained and only 18 voted against. In other words, 
Pakistan is in the minority group of 18 OIC member-countries that opposes the 
moratorium.

It is for Pakistan's government and its Islamic scholars to ponder as to why a 
majority of the OIC members do not find any faith-based bar to the acceptance 
of a moratorium on capital punishment. They may also consider the possibility 
that, as in the case of some international treaties, reservations expressed in 
the name of religion are in fact dictated by the culture or custom of the 
countries concerned.

What is more distressing for human rights activists, abolitionist groups and 
promoters of humanitarian laws in Pakistan is the authorities' aversion to any 
scrutiny of the rationale for their love of the death penalty regime.

What one hears of references to the death penalty during the Universal Periodic 
Review or at talks with the European Union on the GSP+ status is not the result 
of any serious deliberation. Indeed, one doubts if any discussion on the 
subject has ever taken place in Pakistan. That there is an urgent need for such 
a discussion can easily be established.

The recent cases in which the Supreme Court acquitted two individuals who had 
already been executed, or ordered the release of persons who had spent long 
years on death row, have strengthened the call for abolition of the death 
penalty on the ground of high risk of miscarriage of justice. A number of other 
issues that have surfaced over the past many years also need to be addressed. 
These are:

-- The view that the death sentence is not a deterrent to crime has not been 
challenged nor has the view that hangings brutalise society.

-- The Qisas law has prevented the president from pardoning death convicts or 
commuting their sentence although his power to do so under Article 45 of the 
Constitution remains intact. How does one explain the fact that the army chief 
can pardon a person awarded the death sentence by a military court while the 
president cannot do so?

-- The scholars agree that Islam prescribes the death penalty in only 2 
instances. How does the state defend the fact that capital punishment is 
prescribed for 27 offences in the name of religion?

-- The judiciary has pointed out the problems it faces in cases in which 
capital punishment is mandatory if the evidence on record warrants a lesser 
penalty.

-- The possibility of a minor or a mentally challenged person being executed 
keeps cropping up every now and then.

One ventures to suggest a look at the Indian response to the issue of the death 
penalty in view of the shared legal tradition.

The Law Commission of India recommended in August 2015, vide its Report No. 
262, that "the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than 
terrorism-related offences and waging war". The commission agreed to retain 
capital punishment for certain offences in view of the parliamentarians' plea 
that "abolition of death penalty for terrorism-related offences and waging war 
will affect national security", although in the commission's view "there is no 
valid penological justification for treating terrorism differently from other 
crimes."

The commission noted the significant steps taken during India's decades-long 
efforts to restrict the use of the death penalty: removal of the requirement of 
giving special reasons for awarding life imprisonment instead of death (1955); 
introduction of the requirement of imposing the death penalty (1973); and the 
Supreme Court's decision that the death penalty should be restricted to the 
rarest of rare cases (1980). The conclusion reached by the commission was:

"Informed also by the expanded and deepened contents and horizons of the right 
to life and strengthened due process requirements in the interactions between 
the state and the individual, prevailing standards of constitutional morality 
and human dignity, the commission feels that time has come for India to move 
towards abolition of the death penalty."

During the latest debate in the UN General Assembly, however, India again voted 
against the resolution calling for a moratorium although it could have shown 
some respect for the Law Commission's recommendation by abstaining. Which only 
goes to show that, in developing countries, state policies are often determined 
by authorities that are too timid to disturb the status quo or too proud of 
their conservatism to heed the counsel of experts who are conscious of the call 
of the age.

(source: dawn.com)






SOUTH AFRICA:

Christian party calls for the return of the death penalty


The SGP faction in Zwartewaterland is calling for the return of the death 
penalty. "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed by man", faction 
leader Dirk van der Sluis quoted the bible at newspaper AD. "Returning the 
death penalty is God's word and therefore an important reason why we want to do 
so."

The Zwartewaterland faction is teaming up with the Zaanstad faction to convince 
other party members at the SGP party congress on January 14th to add returning 
the death penalty to the SGP party program. "We have sent our proposed 
amendment to the program. Much more I do not want to say. We feel it is only 
logical to include this point because it is already in the manifesto of the 
SGP." Van der Sluis said to the newspaper.

A spokesperson for the national SGP told the newspaper that they are advising 
party members to vote against the proposal at the congress in Hoevelaken. 
According to the spokesperson, the SGP does not mention the death penalty in 
the party's election program for 2017 because it is "difficult to campaign" 
with it as a theme.

The SGP expects about 150 members to attend the congress. Should the majority 
vote for the Zwartewaterland and Zaanstad factions' proposal, returning the 
death penalty will be a spearhead in the party's idea list.

(source: nltimes.nl)






NIGERIA:

Lagos Assembly prescribes death penalty, others for kidnappers


The Lagos State House of Assembly on Thursday passed a bill aimed at checking 
the spate of kidnapping in the state into law, with stiffer penalties including 
death sentence for offenders.

The lawmakers passed the Bill for a Law to Provide for the Prohibition of the 
Act of Kidnapping and for Other Connected Purposes after the 3rd reading.

The passage of the bill was also sequel to the adoption of a report presented 
by Mrs Adefunmilayo Tejuosho, the Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, 
Petitions, Human Rights and Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission 
(LASIEC).

Sponsored by the Speaker of the House, Mr Mudashiru Obasa, it prescribes death 
sentence for kidnappers whose victims die in their custody and life sentence 
for kidnappers whose victims do not die in the hands of their abductors. The 
bill states that any person who kidnaps, abducts, detains, captures or takes 
another person by any means or trick with intent to demand ransom or do 
anything against his/her will, commits an offence.

The bill also stipulates life imprisonment for anyone who makes an attempt to 
kidnap another person.

The bill prescribes 7 years imprisonment for anyone making false representation 
to release a kidnapped or abducted person.

The lawmakers also approved 25 years imprisonment as penalty for anyone found 
guilty of threatening to kidnap another person through phone call, e-mail, text 
message or any other means of communication.

The bill prescribes penalty for any person, who knowingly or wilfully allows or 
permits his premises, building or a place or belonging to which he has control 
of, to be used for the purpose of keeping a person kidnapped.

According to the bill, such a person is guilty of an offence under the law and 
liable to 14 years imprisonment without an option of fine.

The speaker, who read the 20 sections of the bill one after the other for 
members' approval, conducted a voice vote before its passage.

Obasa directed the Acting Clerk of the House, Mr Azeez Sanni, to forward a 
clean copy of the bill to Gov. Akinwunmi Ambode for assent. Lagos State has 
recorded recurrent cases of kidnappings, with the incident affecting students 
in 2 schools in 2016.

In February 2016, 3 schoolgirls were seized from Babington Macaulay Junior 
Seminary, Ikorodu, but were later freed by the police.

In October, gunmen stormed the Lagos Model College, Igbonla, Ikorodu, and took 
away the vice principal, a teacher and four students. They were also after 
several days. Kidnappers also stormed the palace of a traditional ruler, the 
Oniba of Iba, Yishau Goriola Oseni, in July and abducted him.

His release was later secured and several persons are on trial over the kidnap.

(source: vanguardngr.com)