[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 24



INDIA:

Prez mercy means little to death row convicts' kin


President Pranab Mukherjee's decision to commute the death sentence of 4 
persons convicted for killing 34 upper caste people at Bara village in Gaya 
district in 1992 means little for the family members of the convicted men.

Setting aside the state government and Centre's recommendation, the President 
had commuted the death sentence of the 4 persons - Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal 
Mochi, Bir Kuer Paswan and Dharmendra Singh alias Dharu Singh - on Sunday.

While the quartet languish in Bhagalpur central jail, their family members are 
not enthused by the President's decision, the reason being that they will spend 
their remaining lives in jail. "Life in jail is no life," says Chandrami, wife 
of Krishna Mochi.

1 of the 4 children of Krishna, who is a local band master, was born when the 
Bara case accused was in jail. Krishna's other children, including a daughter, 
are now married and have their own families. The four marriages took place in 
Krishna's absence. Notwithstanding the conviction by the TADA court and its 
approval by the Supreme Court, the family continues to regard Krishna as 
innocent.

Krishna's son Ajay, a daily wager, said being poor he can hardly afford to 
visit Bhagalpur jail to see his father. "If he is transferred to Gaya, we can 
visit him once in a while," Ajay added.

Since Nanhe Mochi's family migrated to some other distant village soon after 
the massacre, they could not be contacted. Dharmendra's family members refused 
to talk.

Legal circles are not surprised by the turn of events and the commutation of 
death penalty into life imprisonment. According to Sartaj Ali Khan and Ashok 
Kumar, 2 of the defence lawyers in the Bara massacre case, the inordinate delay 
in disposal of the mercy petition favoured the accused. BJP functionary and 
former chairman of Bihar Legislative Council Tarakant Jha presented the main 
argument on behalf of the accused in the TADA court presided by Jawahar Prasad, 
the then district and sessions judge.

"Holding condemned men on death row for long goes in his favour," said Khan, 
now the public prosecutor of Gaya. The mercy petition was filed in 2003 and its 
disposal took 14 years.

34 male adults belonging to the Bhumihar caste were butchered on the outskirts 
of Bara village on February 12, 1992 under the then Tekari (now Alipur) police 
station. The TADA court's judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court.

(source: The Times of India)






SINGAPORE/MALAYSIA:

NGOs appeal to Singapore to spare Malaysian on death row


Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have appealed to the Singapore 
government on Tuesday to spare a Malaysian man who is on death row there for 
drug trafficking.

Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM), Lawyers for Liberty and Suaram met a 
representative of the High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, where they conveyed 
their concerns over supposedly unfair trial aspects in the case of 30-year-old 
S. Prabagaran.

"We have sent appeal letters to Singapore's President and Prime Minister and 
hope the 2 leaders will hear our calls for Prabagaran to be spared the death 
penalty," said AIM executive director D. Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu.

She added that the NGOs are reiterating calls for Singapore to review its death 
penalty laws once again to abolish the death penalty in its entirety.

Prabagaran is currently awaiting the result of a clemency petition to the 
Singapore President.

The clemency request was sent in February last year, with its result due 
anytime soon, according to lawyers.

However, Singapore has not granted a clemency request for the past 13 years.

Prabagaran's 54-year-old mother V. Eswary also applied to the Malaysian High 
Court to compel the Government here to take his case to the International Court 
of Justice (ICJ).

Eswary sent a memorandum to the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore to refer 
the case to the ICJ on Dec 21 last year, but there has been no response.

Prabagaran was arrested at the Woodlands checkpoint in April 2012 for 
possession of 22.24g of heroin, which were found in a black bundle in the 
centre arm-rest console of the car he was driving.

He had said that he borrowed the car from a friend to enter Singapore that day 
because he was afraid that his motorcycle would be repossessed.

(source: thestar.com.my)






PHILIPPINES:

'Solons prevented from interpellating on death bill debate'


Members of the House of Representatives are being prevented from interpellating 
in the debate on the death penalty bill in the plenary in a bid to railroad the 
passage of the reimposition of capital punishment, opposition lawmakers said.

In a press conference on Tuesday at the House of Representatives, Akbayan Rep. 
Tom Villarin said he had heard of "misinformation" that lawmakers would not be 
allowed to interpellate in the debate on the death penalty bill on the floor if 
they were members of the committees on rules and of justice.

"There (is) information that if you are members of the committee on justice, 
you're not allowed to interpellate, and if you're a member of the rules 
committee, you have no right to interpellate, in the plenary debates," Villarin 
said.

Villarin said he was alarmed by the move to prevent lawmakers from speaking out 
against death penalty, calling it an attempt to "stifle" the opposition.

"This kind of misinformation, isa sa mga panakot dun sa mga members (is a way 
to scare the members) of Congress not to speak up against the death penalty ... 
This move to silence members of the House not to speak up in any way is 
alarming," Villarin said.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said this move reeks of being an "undeclared or de 
facto martial law" in Congress.

Lagman said the Philippines is a signatory to the United Nations Convention 
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 
that prescribes life imprisonment, not death penalty, for any crimes.

"In that convention, the treaty prescribes only imprisonment, and not death, on 
crimes related to drugs. We cannot violate our treaty commitments," Lagman 
said.

Lagman reiterated his call on the House leadership led by Speaker Pantaleon 
Alvarez to allow a conscience vote instead of a party vote on the death 
penalty.

A party vote would have railroaded the bill especially in the lower house 
dominated by a supermajority of allies of President Rodrigo Duterte, who 
campaigned on the promise of restoring capital punishment.

Lagman called on Alvarez to allow members "to exercise a conscience vote to 
have a free and liberated position."

The legislation restoring the death penalty is seen to be a priority 
legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill seeks to impose the death penalty on more than 20 heinous offenses, 
such as rape with homicide, kidnapping for ransom and arson with death.

The bill is expected to undergo sponsorship plenary debates under 2nd reading 
next week, according to Majority Leader Rudy Fari???as. It hurdled the 
committee level last December.

Alvarez, Duterte's staunch ally in Congress, was among those who filed the bill 
seeking to reimpose the death penalty after former President and now Pampanga 
Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo abolished capital punishment in 2006 for its 
failure to deter crime.

Alvarez filed the bill pursuant to President Duterte's campaign promise to 
return capital punishment for heinous crime.

Alvarez's bill sought to reimpose the death penalty for 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, Alvarez said there is a need to reimpose the 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 won the elections on a campaign promise to restore the death penalty by 
hanging, even remarking that the convict's head should be severed by hanging. 
Alvarez said Congress would look into the cheapest way to carry out the death 
penalty, either by firing squad, lethal injection or by hanging.

(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)

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

Lawmakers restrained from voting 'No' to death penalty bill


New members of the House of Representatives are being cautioned on voting 
against and asking questions on the proposed death penalty bill, a lawmaker 
said on Tuesday.

According to Rep. Tom Villarin of Akbayan party-list, House leaders have been 
calling the attention of the lawmakers who did not vote for the bills favored 
by the super majority bloc namely the proposed 2-tier tax scheme for cigarettes 
and the renewal of the franchise of Smart Communications.

The proposed death penalty law covers heinous crimes and including drug-related 
offenses and deems the possession of 10 grams of illegal drugs as drug 
trafficking that is punishable by death.

"The feedback I have been getting [among the new lawmakers]is that when you are 
a member of the House Committee on Justice or a member of the House Committee 
on Rules, you have no right to interpellate during plenary debates. This is 
tantamount to scaring the members of Congress not to speak up against death 
penalty. Why does it have to be this way?" Villarin, who is against the death 
penalty, said.

The super majority bloc in the House, led by President Rodrigo Duterte's 
PDP-Laban, is in coalition with the Nacionalista Party, Nationalist People's 
Coalition, National Union Party, Liberal Party and Lakas-CMD.

The Speaker of the House is Pantaleon Alvarez of Davao del Norte, while the 
House Majority Leader is Rodolfo Farinas of Ilocos Norte.

"This is a move to silence the members of the House; an attempt to stifle 
opposition. We should allow free discussion on the measure. It's tough for the 
[new super majority]lawmakers [to vote against the death penalty]because the 
House leaders will summon you. There's the amendment to the Sin Tax law 
[providing for 2-tier tax scheme for cigarettes], and the bill on the Smart 
franchise. There were lawmakers with the majority who voted against, and the 
House leaders called their attention," Villarin pointed out.

Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay renewed his call on the House leadership to allow 
aconscience vote, instead of a party vote, on the death penalty bill.

"We call on the leadership not to insist on a party or pressure vote. A 
conscience vote is necessary for this important and retrogressive measure. 
Members of the House should be allowed to fully exercise their conscience and 
conviction in this. Many members of the super majority will go against the 
party decision and will vote against the reimposition of death penalty," Lagman 
said.

He added that, there is no overriding reason involving heinous crimes that 
would justify the restoration of the death penalty as provided for by the 1987 
Constitution, which the Duterte administration also wants revised.

"The burden of proving otherwise is on those proposing the death penalty. But 
so far, they have failed to make a justification since crime incidents have 
been reduced," Lagman said.

Lagman added that the Philippines is a signatory to the 1988 United Nations 
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances, which only provides imprisonment as punishment for drug-related 
crimes.

"That commitment cannot be violated by a mere legislative action on the part of 
the House or the Senate, even an action accrued by the President," Lagman said.

(source: The Manila Times)




THAILAND:

Death penalty for graft a dangerous road to go down


The latest proposal by the National Reform Steering Assembly for the imposition 
of the death penalty on public figures convicted of graft causing damage 
exceeding 1 billion baht opens up a number of moral dilemmas.

I have gone on record to state publicly that grand corruption (the abuse of 
high-level power that benefits the few at the expense of the many) should be 
considered a crime against humanity, and be defined as such under Article 7 of 
the Rome statute per the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Given my public stance, any infringement amounting to serious levels of 
corruption should draw congratulatory applause from yours truly, but could I 
ever reconcile support for the death penalty for an offence of corruption?

The death penalty is rightly controversial. I myself am against it subject to 
very limited exceptions. However, I do not propose to debate the death penalty 
per se here. Rather, I raise some questions about its application as a 
punishment for corruption in Thailand today.

My personal and professional stance on grand corruption goes back several 
years. I have written several articles and a paper on the subject. Earlier this 
year I was part of a team that presented on the topic at the C5 Fraud and Asset 
Recovery Conference in Miami.

The initial hurdle I have to navigate is that relating to "value": how can 
somebody guilty of graft amounting to one billion baht (US$28 million) be 
sentenced to death, and someone else guilty of an existing crime of a lesser 
value only get 5 years imprisonment?

Making judgements based entirely on value is a dangerous road to go down. As I 
write this, UK law enforcement agencies and their courts are utilising a 
sentencing system that considers "victim impact" and not simply "value".

The UK perspective takes into account differing scenarios measured in terms of 
the adverse human consequences of fraud. The theft of 1 million pounds (44 
million baht) from a multinational company may have less detrimental effect on 
the corporate victim than the loss of 100 pounds stolen from an old-age 
pensioner. How should you quantify the wrongdoing in such cases?

The Thai proposal recognises that corruption has to be dealt with firmly, but 
it is the ultimate sentence and how it is to be determined that needs to be 
considered and debated.

For comparative purposes, if a public official committing the crime of 
corruption in Thailand receives US$20 million from a public works contractor 
for them to win a public tender competition, how would another criminal be 
perceived who received a bribe of $5m from a contractor that resulted in a 
hospital having to close down its services?

The impact is inherently different. One potentially affects a corporate 
competitor seeking to outbid the dishonest contractor, and the other affects 
the ordinary members of the public who suffer as a consequence of losing their 
hospital. But this said, my reading of the proposal would see both receiving 
prison sentences of 5 years or less.

The issue isn't as simple as whether or not you are pro- or anti-death penalty. 
The controversy raised is one whereby a corrupt official knows that if he or 
she acquires less than 1 billion baht, they can serve five years in jail and 
live out the rest of their life upon release (potentially with assets hidden 
elsewhere). Some would say that the possibility of obtaining US$28 million (or 
just short of that figure) is worth the risk, but woe betide anybody who gets 
his sums wrong and acquires slightly more than this potentially fatal cutoff 
figure.

Although I welcome Thailand's determination to stamp out corruption, I would 
question the simplistic mathematics of deciding who is going to live and who is 
going to die on the basis of a line drawn in the sand. It is effectively 
providing the criminal with a goal line to reach and attain, but not cross.

Finally, the legislation should not be used retrospectively. One could never 
condone such action.

Hopefully, this will not be the case and the Thai stance is a genuine attempt 
at preventing future graft.

(source: Opinion: Martin Kenney is Managing Partner of Martin Kenney & Co 
(www.martinkenney.com), Solicitors, a specialist investigative and asset 
recovery practice based in the BVI and focused on multi-jurisdictional fraud 
and grand corruption cases----Bangkok Post)


ST KITTS & NEVIS:

In Support Of Capital Punishment


One Ewin James, writing an opinion piece in this The Observer newspaper of 13th 
instant argues pro capital punishment as a fit, fair and just penalty for those 
who visit murder on others of their fellowmen.

I support the proposition.

The unpalatable fact of the matter is that St. Kitts and Nevis , a classic 
small-island state with a population hovering around 50,000 souls, and 
occupying a physical landmass of some 104 sq. miles, averages 25 or so murders 
per year, and as such, 'boasts' a per capita murder rate of approximately 50 
per 100,000 persons.

When this statistic is juxtaposed with the figure for Singapore being 0.5, 20 
for Nigeria, for the USA 6, for Jamaica 38, 26 for St Vincent and the 
Grenadines, and 30 for Antigua, it becomes frighteningly clear that we have a 
serious problem with murder in our beloved Federation.

If one couples the foregoing with the reality that very few murderers are 
caught and convicted, and that even fewer are sentenced to death, it is fair to 
conclude that the celestially high level of unwarranted killings will persist, 
giving rise to a sickening societal acceptance of such internecine behaviour as 
'normal', even to be expected, as one's sensitivity to and sense of umbrage at 
these murders become numb and inured over time.

Yet I am convinced that a suffocating anger and a tide of discontent at these 
killings run the gamut of social strata, some of it bred by despair arising 
from a sense of individual helplessness underpinned by a real or perceived 
inability to 'do something about it'.

But, more importantly, and more germane to this debate, is the defiant refusal 
of the powers that be to activate the capital punishment apparatus that our 
laws provide as a definitive means of addressing the vexing issue.

The voice of the people is (still) the voice of God, and despite its being 
evident that the significant majority of the population not only supports but 
desires the imposition of the death penalty on those found guilty of murder, 
those in position to facilitate its application stubbornly and steadfastly 
refuse to bend or bow to this voice.

I submit that our society cannot afford to continue to go easy on those bent on 
killing their fellowmen, residents and visitors alike.

I propose that we hang the culprits as a matter of course.

Let those who claim to be champions of 'human rights' damn o their hearts' 
content. For there is ample evidence that an emphasis on 'human rights' has 
contributed directly to an abundance of human wrongs.

A 'life sentence' for those found guilty, - where such is (rarely!) imposed, -, 
almost always translates into the culprit being housed, fed, entertained and 
protected by the State, using, of course, funds, monies, personnel, and other 
resources extracted from and provided by peaceful, law-abiding citizens and 
residents, including, so very unfairly !, those members and relatives of the 
family of the victim(s) him/herself (themselves).

The never-ending discussion as to whether capital punishment deters murders is, 
to me, pellucidly immaterial to this debate. I do not for one moment promote 
the imposition of the death penalty on murderers premised on a notion that it 
serves as deterrent.

Indeed, capital punishment may or may not deter, but clearly, irrefutably, one 
thing is certain : hanging the murderer ABSOLUTELY DETERS HIM/HER FROM KILLING 
AGAIN !

Otto Von Bismarck contends that murderers must stew in their own grease.

The Bible commends that whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man must his blood 
be shed.

Capital punishment, then, as James contends, is retributive justice, pure and 
total.

I am convinced that because the penalty that murderers exact and suffer for 
their irreversible crimes is neither swift, severe, nor sure, the rate of 
homicides continues apace.

I suggest we return to the gallows as means of declaring boldly that we are 
deadly serious about stemming the tide of murders that already threatens to 
wreak irreparable damage to our economic and cultural infrastructure, and to 
violently upset our social equilibrium.

Hang them high !!

(source: Editorial, Michael Blake; The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer)