[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

March 3



BARBADOS:

Death penalty in limbo


Barbados has been left in limbo concerning the death penalty.


And Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Charles Leacock has pointed to the 
conflict between international rulings and the local law as the crux of the 
matter.

Leacock referred to the Boyce and Joseph case in 2003 in which the mandatory 
death penalty was deemed cruel and unusual and inconsistent with section 15 of 
the constitution which spoke to the protection from inhuman treatment.

However, due to section 26 of the constitution, which spoke to the saving of 
existing laws, the death penalty was retained.

(source: nationnews.com)






AUSTRALIA:

Bali 9 family critical of Turnbull government death penalty decision


The family of executed Bali nine drug smuggler Andrew Chan says the Turnbull 
government is putting more Australians at risk of the firing squad by turning 
its back on a plan to change police intelligence rules.

The government has quietly rejected a recommendation made by a parliamentary 
committee last year that would have banned the Australian Federal Police from 
sharing drug crime information with foreign countries unless they could first 
obtain assurances the death penalty would not be applied.

No change to death penalty cooperation

There will be no new restrictions on police cooperation with foreign partners 
in cases involving the death penalty.

The AFP - widely condemned for tipping off Indonesian authorities about Chan 
and Myuran Sukumaran's Bali 9 heroin plot - would have to take a much more 
careful approach under the system.

It was one of the main proposals put forward by the bipartisan committee - led 
by former Liberal MP and anti-death penalty campaigner Philip Ruddock - formed 
in the wake of the 2015 executions of Chan and Sukumaran. The prohibition would 
have applied to Australians and foreigners alike.

Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan were executed in 2015.Myuran Sukumaran and 
Andrew Chan were executed in 2015. Photo: Glenn Campbell But in a formal 
response, the government said the proposal was impractical because Australia's 
foreign law enforcement partners could not provide such assurances and it would 
be "inappropriate" to seek undertakings from prosecutors.

"Combating serious drug crimes is a high priority for the government and the 
government's ability to detect, deter and prevent drug crimes would be impeded 
if Australia could not co-operate with states in the region that retain the 
death penalty," the document said.

"An inability to co-operate with foreign law enforcement partners poses risk of 
harm to the Australian community and significant impact to society."

Official police figures released under Freedom of Information laws in 2015 
showed the AFP puts hundreds of people at risk of the death penalty every year 
- 95 % of them for drug offences - with its information sharing.

But Michael Chan said if the proposal had been in place in 2005 his brother 
might still be alive today.

"To hear that they're not changing anything is disappointing," Mr Chan told 
Fairfax Media. "It's a real backwards step.

"Considering everything the boys went through, to think another family could 
now go through the exact same thing - it's just so disappointing.

"No one's ever said that Andrew should have been allowed to just come home 
scot-free. He would have faced a lengthy jail terms here. But to hand over that 
kind of information, that evidence - it's really not good for anyone."

Mr Ruddock, now the government's human rights envoy, declined to openly 
criticise the decision but stood by his proposal.

"The balance ought to be in favour of those who are likely to be faced with 
execution if evidence we have might lead to a conviction that carries the death 
penalty," Mr Ruddock told Fairfax Media.

"In relation to these important crimes you have got to pull all the levers you 
can.

"If we said to another country: 'We've got some material that may be of 
interest to you but you have got to be able to give us a categorical assurance 
that if the person if convicted you don't use the death penalty. Otherwise, you 
don't get it.' It seems to me that would be a very powerful argument."

Ruddock, who delivered the report as his final act in Parliament before calling 
time on his 43-year political career, said Australia should be "fearsomely 
advocating" for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

Amnesty International described the decision as "extremely disappointing".

"This response leaves open the door for information from Australian law 
enforcement being used to see people - Australians included - executed 
overseas. As a country, we have to ask ourselves if this is consistent with our 
principled opposition to the death penalty," said Amnesty's Guy Ragen.

The Human Rights Law Centre said the government had fallen short by leaving the 
"difficult and painful" decisions about how to handle information in future 
death penalty cases in the hands of police.

Director of Advocacy and Research, Emily Howie, said the government should 
legislate the prohibition.

"Australia cannot have it both ways," she said.

"It can't oppose the death penalty in some forums and support the investigation 
of death penalty cases in others. Australia's global advocacy for abolition of 
the death penalty is seriously undermined by Australian police actively sharing 
information that leads directly to people being put to death."

The Sukumaran family declined to comment.

Chan and Sukumaran were executed by firing squad on the Indonesian prison 
island of Nusa Kambangan on April 29, 2015.

The AFP has defended its role in the Bali 9 case, saying it did not have enough 
evidence to arrest the Australians before they left for Indonesia.

Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973, the same year Mr Ruddock was 
first elected.

(source: Sydney Morning Herald)






SINGAPORE----film review

In 'Apprentice,' Teaching the Fine Art of Execution


"The trick is to place the knot just behind the left ear and above the jaw." 
Those instructions on how to carry out a "humane" hanging are given early in 
the Singaporean film "Apprentice" by Rahim (Wan Hanafi Su), the chief 
executioner at a high-security prison, to his new assistant, Aiman (Fir 
Rahman). Rahim takes enormous pride in his work, which he has been doing for 30 
years, and he, at least outwardly, exhibits no qualms about his profession. 
When their time comes, he boasts, the death-row prisoners feel no pain because 
they die instantly. Rahim assures 1 man before he's hanged that he is being 
sent to "a better place."

The tricky mentor-protege relationship between Rahim and Aiman, who's 28, is 
the heart of this moderately gripping film, directed by Boo Junfeng, that by 
its end tells you more than you want to know about this form of capital 
punishment. The 2 appear to bond early, as when Aiman guides Rahim to a store 
from which he can replenish his dwindling supply of rope. By then, we've 
learned that Aiman, a polite, handsome Malay, is the son of a killer executed 
by Rahim years earlier.

A former army officer who was involved in gang violence when he was younger but 
has since changed his ways, Aiman lives with his older sister Suhaila (Mastura 
Ahmad), with whom he has a tense relationship. The dour Suhaila, who raised her 
brother almost single-handedly, is about to leave Singapore to marry her 
Australian fiancee and is critical of her Aiman's new job.

At first "Apprentice" seems to be a basic revenge film in which Aiman stalks 
the man who killed his father. But it becomes psychologically more complex as 
it reveals Rahim's buried rage and guilt over his occupation and Aiman's 
ambivalence when offered the chance to step into his new boss's shoes. 
"Apprentice" largely skirts the issue of capital punishment while letting it be 
known that most of the other guards don't want the job. Killing a fellow human 
being is not easy.

(source: New York Times)






PHILIPPINES:

Edcel Lagman slams House majority for calling death penalty opponents bullies


The House leadership is pushing through with its threat that deputy speakers 
and committee chairmen will be removed from their posts should they vote 
against the death penalty bill, Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas said.

"As the Speaker has clarified, he respects the freedom of members to vote, in 
the same manner that they should also respect the freedom of the leadership to 
have as its leaders only those willing to toe the line. Anyone against, for 
now, will still be allowed to remain in the majority, but not part of the 
leadership," Farinas said.

Majority members who have repeatedly voted against the passage of the 
reimposition of capital punishment against drug offenders may be expelled from 
the majority, he added.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said the majority's railroading of the passage of the 
death penalty bill "has led to the mutation of the House into a parliament of 
bullies and puppets."

"The arrogance of the House leaders in depriving the oppositors of the death 
penalty bill of their freedom of expression and right to debate is 
unprecedented in the history of the House," Lagman said.

But Majority leaders insisted that anti-death penalty solons were the ones who 
have been bullying the majority via delaying tactics, including the minority's 
push for a nominal voting instead of a viva voce.

"They would bully the majority by demanding that [they] stay in the session 
hall and listen to their arguments. How many times did they prevent themselves 
from supposedly expressing their views by questioning the quorum themselves?" 
Farinas said.

"It was high time for the Majority to stand up to bullying tactics of a few 
members," he added.

Amid the finger pointing between pro and anti-death penalty solons, Lagman 
panned his partymates and colleagues who did not stand up for the leadership.

"The lack of will and courage of most members of the supermajority to defy the 
pressure and threats of the House leadership is reminiscent of the rubberstamp 
Batasan Pambansa during the Martial Law regime," he said.

Of the 8 Liberal Party members who hold key positions in the House, only 3 
supported the call to have a nominal voting, a mode of casting a vote that 
makes it easier to identify which lawmakers were for or against the death 
penalty.

Among LP leaders, Land Use Committee chair Kit Belmonte, People's Participation 
Committee chair Kaka Bag-Ao, Quezon City Rep. Bolet Banal stood in favor of 
nominal voting, while Deputy Speaker Miro Quimbo and four other LPs did not 
stand, Kabayan Rep. Harry Roque said.

Former president, now House Deputy Speaker Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo, who as 
president signed the law abolishing the death penalty in 2006, was reportedly 
off the floor during the latter part of the deliberations when congressmen 
approved House Bill 4727, or the proposed Death Penalty Law, on 2nd reading in 
a viva voce vote.

(source: abs-cbn.com)

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

CBCP to intensify campaign against death penalty bill


Officials of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) vowed to 
intensify their campaign against the bill reviving death penalty as it nears 
the final approval from the House of Representatives.

CBCP - Commission on the Laity Chairman Bishop Broderick Pabillo stressed that 
they will continue their fight against the "anti-life" House Bill No. 4727 
after it passed the 2nd reading in the Lower House of Congress.

"We do not give up the fight. In life, there is hope. Since we fight for life, 
we do not lose hope. This is our resurrection faith," Pabillo said.

In a statement, CBCP [ Permanent Committee on Public Affairs Chairman 
Archbishop Ramon Arguelles hit lawmakers, who continue to support the 
"anti-life" bill.

"The good congressmen have approved the anti-God, anti-life, anti-humanity 
measure on Ash Wednesday, and the 1st day of the season on conversion from evil 
ways. The legislators choose to go against the Word of God. They choose death 
in the name of the people," Arguelles said.

He maintained the bill is discriminatory since it would only affect the poor.

"Certainly, death is only for the poor, who will not be able to pay not even 
lawyers to defend them," Arquelles added.

The House Bill No. 4727 was approved on Wednesday, March 1, on second reading 
despite attempts by pro-life lawmakers to block its approval.

Despite the bill's apparent widespread support in Congress, Pabillo pointed out 
even the lawmakers in favor of the bill did not want to be identified due to 
its moral implications

"The Lower House has chosen death and not life. They were even afraid to be 
identified. They refused nominal voting," pointed Pabillo.

HB 4727 was approved by voice voting, or voting by simply saying "aye" or "nay" 
to conceal the individual votes of the congressmen.

(source: Manila Bulletin)

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

Amnesty International: 'Yes' vote on death penalty will shame Philippines


Members of the House of Representatives should reflect before voting on the 
reimplementation of the death penalty, Amnesty International Philippines said 
Thursday, adding a 'yes' vote would bring shame to the Philippines.

"Amnesty International maintains that instead of pushing the death penalty as a 
solution to criminality, the government should ensure a determined 
institutional reform as a means to confront crime while upholding justice and 
human rights in the country," lawyer Romeo Cabarde Jr., Amnesty International 
Philippines vice chairperson, said in a statement.

He said the group, which has been attending House plenary debates on the 
measure, is dismayed that members of the House supermajority seemingly refused 
to hear arguments against the death penalty.

The House of Representatives approved the measure to reimpose the death penalty 
for drug offenses on second reading Tuesday night.

A 3rd reading is scheduled on Monday, March 6.

Even if passed on 3rd and final reading, the proposal will still need the 
Senate to pass a counterpart bill. Once passed and consolidated by a bicameral 
conference committee, the bill will be sent to Malacanang for the president's 
signature.

Cabarde said that reinstating the death penalty undermines the government's to 
respect, protect, and uphold human rights.

"A 'yes' vote to reinstate the death penalty is a shame and an affront to the 
country's history as a strong nation leading the human rights discourse in 
Asia," Cabarde said.

Wilnor Papa, AI Campaigns Coordinator for the Philippines, said in an interview 
that rights advocates are dismayed and saddened that the proponents of the 
death penalty seemed to be rushing the bill.

He added that it is clear that the lawmakers ignored the strong arguments 
against the bill since they are pushing for retribution through killing.

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said in July 2016 that the reimposition of 
death penalty and a shift to federalism would be the House's priority measures.

Alvarez and Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, chair of the House Justice 
committee, have argued that the death penalty would be preferable to 
extrajudicial killings.

Rights groups, including the Commission on Human Rights, have been vocal about 
their opposition to the death penalty, which they say is a kind of cruel and 
unusual punishment prohibited by the 1987 Constitution.

They also say a return to the death penalty would violate international 
agreements that the Philippines is party to and is not an effective deterrent 
to crime anyway.

"The failure of the death penalty as a crime deterrent is globally recognized 
and the government should maintain the prohibition on its use,"Phelim Kine, 
deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch said in December.

(source: philstar.com)

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

What Went Before: Death Penalty Law


The 1987 Constitution promulgated during the Corazon Aquino administration 
abolished the death penalty "unless for compelling reasons involving heinous 
crimes, Congress hereafter provides for it."

In 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659, or the Death Penalty Law.

In March 1996, the law was amended and prescribed death by lethal injection.

Between 1999 and 2000, during the term of President Joseph Estrada, 7 inmates 
were executed as part of his administration's anticrime drive.

The 1st and last to be executed were rapists Leo Echegaray, on Feb. 9, 1999, 
and Alex Bartolome, on Jan. 4, 2000. In between, 2 other rapists and 3 others 
convicted of killing a policeman were executed.

In June 2006, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo abolished the death 
penalty. She said the measure had not proven to be a deterrent to crime and had 
become a dead-letter law. There were an estimated 1,200 inmates on death row at 
the time

(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)





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

Pimentel expects close fight on death penalty in Senate


While expecting tough debates, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III sees the 
chamber passing a bill restoring the death penalty, citing how its version in 
the House of Representatives was swiftly approved after proponents limited the 
punishable crimes to drug-related offenses.

Pimentel, who himself is "open" to the restoration of the death penalty, 
admitted that the Senate still lacked a consensus on the proposal, a key 
component of President Duterte's war on drugs.

6 death penalty bills are pending on the Senate committee on justice and human 
rights.

Following heated exchanges, the House of Representatives on Wednesday night 
passed the measure by voice vote on 2nd reading. A 3rd reading next week will 
just be a formality.

"I heard that the House limited it to one crime which they considered to be the 
most heinous as of the moment. So a 1-crime death penalty law would have a 
bigger chance of passing the Senate than a death penalty law with a lot of 
enumerated crimes," Pimentel told reporters on Wednesday night.

Close fight seen

It would not be smooth sailing in the Senate, he said. "There is no 
consensus... [but] it has a chance. A close fight. I'm predicting anywhere from 
14 versus 10 or 10 versus 14, either way."

At the last hearing on Feb. 7, Sen. Richard Gordon, the committee chair, 
suspended proceedings after the Philippines' commitment to international 
treaties that uphold the abolition of the death penalty was raised.

The Philippines is signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which binds acceding 
states to the movement toward the global abolition of the death penalty.

Rubber stamp

"We can justify that we never surrendered sovereignty, [that] the treaty cannot 
tie our hands now. We can't do anything ... when we have a strategy on how to 
fight crime, when we have a strategy on how to improve our society, we should 
not admit that a treaty ties down our hands. [Otherwise] we cannot do 
anything," Pimentel said.

The House minority bloc decried the swift passage of the death penalty bill, 
saying the chamber was turned into a "rubber stamp" of President Duterte.

"They practically discarded all the rules," said Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat.

Opponents of the bill introduced amendment after amendment - but lost heavily 
to the supermajority, which voted "nay" to each one of them.

The House approved the "omnibus rejection' by the bill sponsor, Rep. Reynaldo 
Umali, of all amendments proposed by its opponents because they did not give 
any new arguments.

"I have not experienced this inordinate muscling of the members of the House. 
This is a chamber of puppets and bullies," Rep. Edcel Lagman said.

Tyranny of the minority

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez shrugged off the criticism.

"The House journal will speak for itself," he said on Thursday. "We cannot 
allow the tyranny of the minority to prevail over the majority. We are a 
democratic country."

The approved bill was a heavily diluted version of the original measure, 
seeking only to punish major drug offenses, including the manufacture and sale 
of illegal drugs and the maintenance of a drug den or laboratory, with 
reclusion perpetua, a 20-40-year jail sentence, to death.

The original proposal identified 21 heinous crimes, including plunder, treason, 
murder and rape, to be punishable by death, but the list was reduced to only 
drug-related offenses to make the bill more palatable to lawmakers.

House Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas said: "The House of Representatives 
exists to represent our people. The people want the death penalty reimposed as 
expressed by their representatives in our caucuses and shown by them in our 
sessions, but a minor group against it had been bullying the majority in 
expressing its will."

All about politics

Fr. Jerome Secillano, a spokesperson of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the 
Philippines, slammed the approval of the bill as "inhumane, shameful and 
blatantly disrespectful."

"At the end of it, I don't think conscience still played a part in deciding for 
the bill. It's all about politics and political expediency on the part of our 
lawmakers," he said on Thursday.

Batangas Archbishop Emeritus Ramon Arguelles said: "The legislators choose to 
go against the word of God. They choose death in the name of the people."

The death penalty, he said, would only be for the poor unable to pay lawyers to 
defend them, while those who plunder and use the people's money for their evil 
deeds would "legally elude the death penalty."

Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said the Church would not give up. 
"In life there is hope. Since we fight for life we do not lose hope. This is 
our resurrection faith."

(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)