[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 18



UNITED KINGDOM:

Tory aide: 'I was hired as an execution consultant to teach US prison staff how 
to hang people'----Tony Homewood, Conservative election agent for Wakefield 
candidate Antony Calvert, revealed he was an "execution consultant" and had 
been "instrumental" in the hanging of serial killer Westley Allan Dodd


A Tory candidate's senior aide has revealed he was hired by a US prison to 
teach staff how execute people by hanging.

Tony Homewood, who is Conservative election agent for Wakefield candidate 
Antony Calvert, was employed by the state of Washington as an "executions 
consultant in the 1990s."

Homewood told BBC Three Counties: "In the 90s, when the Americans hanged 
Westley Allan Dodd in Olympia, they didn't really know how to do it, so they 
looked around for someone who knew something about hanging. And I was a 
recognised historian on British judicial executions.

"And they engaged me as a consultant."

Tony Homewood said he slept "sucking my thumb like a baby" the night Dodd was 
executed

Host Jonathan Vernon-Smith was taken aback, saying: "You were a consultant 
executioner?"

Homewood said: "I was yes. For Scott Blonien, the [assistant] Attorney General 
at Walla Walla state prison."

Vernon-Smith asked: "So they wanted to know how they could effectively hang 
people and kill them?

Homewood replied: "How to do it without strangling them to death, basically. 
Yeah.

"Unfortunately - or, you might say fortunately depending on your viewpoint - 
the courts in America ruled it to be cruel and unusual punishment, and there 
were only 3 in the 90s and then there were no more."

Dodd was a serial killer and child molester, who has been called "one of the 
most evil killers in history."

He was convicted for tying 2 10 and 11 year old boys to a tree, raping them and 
then stabbing them to death. He abused and murdered a 3rd child in his home.

Dodd chose hanging as his preferred method of execution, adding that he chose 
the method because it was how his final victim died.

He also asked for the execution to be televised, but the request was denied.

He called into the radio station to take part in a debate on moors murderer Ian 
Brady, arguing the serial killer should have been put to death for his crimes.

He argued Brady had been able to "torture" the mother of victim Keith Bennett, 
whose body was never found, by claiming for decades he knew where he was 
buried, but refusing to reveal the location.

"Personally, I think that 10 quid for the executioner," he said, "or 15 guineas 
by '65, '64, to have hung him at Manchester would have saved the world a lot of 
trouble as far as I'm concerned."

Asked if he thought he could have conducted the execution himself, he said: 
"Yes, I could do it."

The host asked him how he knew he could perform an execution: "Have you 
performed one? Have you killed someone?"

"That's by the way," he replied. "That's not what we're talking about. We're 
here to talk about the death penalty and that's carrying out the sentence of 
the court."

He boasted he'd been told the 1st execution he consulted on was one of the 
quickest deaths ever

He added: "Let's put it this way, I orchestrated the execution of people in 
America and I didn't lose any sleep over it. Maybe I'm wrong. Taking someone's 
life...takes some doing, I'm sure it would have some effect.

"I'm very good at rationalising this sort of thing."

He said he had been "instrumental" in the death of prisoners, but had not been 
there when the execution took place.

He told authorities how tight to tie the rope and how far to drop the prisoner, 
among other things.

He said: "Well, Westley Dodd hanged three children. So hey ho, I'm not 
particularly worried about it. I'm very good at detaching myself from these 
things, you know what I mean?"

He added that when he went to bed that night he was "sucking my thumb like a 
baby. It didn't bother me at all."

He boasted he had been told by the assistant Attorney General that the 
execution had been one of the quickest he'd ever seen.

But he denied he was unemotional. "I've got Grandchildren,' he said. "And I 
love them to death."

He said he wouldn't want to do the job every day, and he wouldn't want to hang 
people "willy nilly."

He said he advised executioners on a 2nd prisoner, who they were concerned 
about hanging because he was overweight.

(source: mirror.co.uk)


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





Ian Brady escaped hanging - and defined attitudes to the death penalty----Apart 
from their sheer horror, the Moors murders stayed in the public imagination 
because they marked the end of capital punishment


Ian Brady retained his dark grip on the British imagination right to the very 
end. The 1965 police photograph of the Moors murderer stared out from the front 
pages once more this week to mark his death at 79, just as they have done so 
often ever since Brady was convicted of 3 murders in May 1966. Few criminals of 
any era are front-page news for half a century; Brady and his accomplice, Myra 
Hindley, were unquestionably 2 of them.

The most obvious reason for this 50-year notoriety is, of course, the sheer 
horror of the crimes that Brady planned and committed. The details of his 
tortures and acts are unbearable. The transcript of victims' pleas, never mind 
the tapes that were heard in court, are as shocking as anything one could ever 
encounter.

But the revolting nature of the crimes, important though it is, is not the only 
explanation for the long shadow that Brady cast over Britain into the 21st 
century. Though the serial murder of children for pleasure, and the involvement 
of a woman as co-killer, marked the Moors murders out in the annals of British 
crime, they also came at a potently significant time in the evolution of 
British penal policy: the abolition of the death penalty.

Brady and Hindley carried out their killings between 1963 and 1965. Brady was 
arrested on 7 October 1965.

However in December 1964, with Harold Wilson's Labour in a small parliamentary 
majority, the House of Commons voted by 355 to 170 in favour of the backbencher 
Sydney Silverman's bill to abolish hanging in Britain. By the time that Brady 
was arrested, Silverman's bill had almost completed its parliamentary journey. 
A month after the arrest, the bill became law. Hanging was abolished on 9 
November 1965.

So by the time that Brady and Hindley's cases came to trial, at Chester in 
April 1966, the sentence for murder that would have applied at the time they 
killed their victims had changed from hanging to life imprisonment. As a 
result, for very many people, Brady and Hindley became the totemic faces of a 
Britain that they believed had "gone soft" on crime.

The importance of the intimacy between the Moors murders and the abolition of 
the death penalty is hard to overstate. Even before the trial, the killings 
became the focus of a campaign to bring back hanging.

In the general election of 31 March 1966, Silverman was challenged in the 
Nelson and Colne constituency in northern Lancashire, which he had represented 
since 1935, by Patrick Downey, the uncle of 1 of his victims, Lesley Ann 
Downey. Downey stood on a single-plank, pro-hanging platform. Silverman held on 
with an increased majority (he died 2 years later). But Downey took 5,117 
votes, nearly 14% of the total, amid great publicity.

Downey's intervention was the trigger for an immediate repoliticisation of the 
hanging issue by senior Conservatives, notably the former cabinet minister 
Duncan Sandys. As early as the autumn of 1966, Sandys tried to launch a bill to 
reintroduce hanging for the killers of police officers.

This was to be the first of a regularly recurring series of attempts to bring 
back hanging over the ensuing 20 years, generally backed by large majorities in 
the opinion polls. And while Brady himself had not killed a police officer, he 
and Hindley were regularly front and centre of every press and parliamentary 
campaign to bring back the rope.

50 years on, the campaign to bring back hanging has lost most of its momentum. 
Conservative party general election manifestos no longer commit, as they did in 
the 1970s and 1980s, to a free vote on the issue in the next parliament. 
Parliament has not debated hanging since 1998. Most MPs of all parties are now 
firm abolitionists. In 2015 the British Social Attitudes Survey reported that 
only 48% of the public supported bringing back the rope, perhaps the 1st time 
that the return of capital punishment fell short of a poll majority. It was the 
lowest figure since the survey began in 1983, when around 75% of people were in 
favour.

The media coverage of Brady's death shows that all the many passions that were 
aroused for so long by his killings have not quite died with him. There will 
still be journalists, retired police officers and relatives of the victims who 
will demand another inquiry or dig on Saddleworth Moor, where the victims' 
bodies were buried. Yet when Brady's ashes are disposed of - perhaps they 
already have been - Britain can perhaps finally lay to rest the long and 
lingering possibility from the 1960s that hanging will ever return.

(source: The Guardian)






JAPAN:

Japan's opposition bloc gears up to block controversial conspiracy bill, 
submits no-confidence motion


Japan's opposition parties on Wednesday submitted a no-confidence motion in the 
justice minister to the lower house of parliament and in doing so delayed the 
passage of a controversial anti-terror conspiracy bill that Prime Minister 
Shinzo Abe's government is ardently trying to force into law.

The no-confidence motion against Justice Minister Katsutoshi Kaneda, which has 
been brought by the main opposition Democratic Party along with three smaller 
parties, takes aim directly at Kaneda who they have been lambasting for his 
mishandling of debate on the issue.

According to the no-confidence motion, Kaneda, who is in charge of 
deliberations on the bill in parliament, has "continued to display behavior 
unbecoming of a cabinet minister, having been unable to answer even basic 
questions, such as whether ordinary people will be targeted by this bill."

Opposition parties also fundamentally maintain that the bill remains a danger 
to the privacy of ordinary citizens and could unjustly punish civic groups and 
labor unions.

Nevertheless, it has been approved by Abe's cabinet and has the backing of his 
ruling Liberal Democratic Party-led bloc.

They believe that when it comes into effect, it will be able to tackle what Abe 
has described could be potential terrorist threats on Japanese soil associated 
with the hosting of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics here.

The ruling coalition is hoping to get the contentious bill enacted after debate 
in both chambers of parliament by the end of the current parliamentary session 
on June 18, and Kaneda has told the press he wants to continue in his role, 
despite being admonished by the opposition camp.

Nevertheless, opposition party heads have stated that the mere semantic changes 
made to the final draft of the bill -- that itself has been rewritten numerous 
times -- are not enough for them to sign off on its passage through the lower 
chamber.

They have collectively voiced concern that the state would be allowed 
unprecedented powers of surveillance and could persecute civic groups without 
unequivocal justification, if the bill becomes law.

In the latest iteration of the bill, which is aimed at amending the law on 
organized crime, informed sources said recently the charge of conspiracy has 
simply been reworded as "planning terrorism and similar acts." Versions that 
have since been scrapped applied to "broader" groups.

The contentious bill also proposes punishing crimes in connection with the 
expansion of illegal activities of organized crime groups and covers 277 
possible offenses spanning systematic killings, drug crimes and hijacking.

Those caught plotting one of the crimes could face up to five years in prison 
if the crimes they are planning carry the death penalty.

This prison sentence will also be applied if the crimes planned carry a jail 
sentence of 10 years or more, according to the bill.

The government maintains that the bill is needed to protect against potential 
acts of terrorism that may occur during the Olympics in Tokyo, with Abe's 
administration claiming that the latest version of the bill is less invasive 
than previous versions that were submitted and failed.

But opposition parties, lawyers and civic groups have voiced major concerns 
that the bill will lead to the government being allowed to invade the privacy 
of ordinary citizens and unjustly punish civic groups and labor unions and in 
doing so possibly infringe on human rights.

The main opposition Democratic Party and three smaller allied parties that 
filed the no-confidence motion Wednesday said the minor semantic revisions made 
to the updated bill do little to quash fears that investigative authorities 
could be granted arbitrary powers of search by the government.

The Democratic Party blasted the bill during its first task-force meeting on 
the issue last month with the party's Diet affairs chief Kazunori Yamanoi 
stating that the party must raise a great national uproar over the bill and 
attack Kaneda in thorough deliberations on the issue.

All 4 major opposition parties are united in killing the bill and have vowed 
not to allow it to pass through parliament and into law, stating that the bill 
was no different to former iterations submitted to parliament that were 
subsequently scrapped.

They previously claimed that the bill will erode the integrity of the criminal 
code in Japan by allowing people to be charged in connections with crimes that 
have not been committed.

Opponents to the legislation also believe that the scope of the bill is not 
limited to terrorist groups and could be applied in an arbitrary manner by law 
enforcement personnel, despite the government's arguments to the contrary.

The latest draft of the controversial bill states that the charge of conspiracy 
will be applied to organized crime groups with the punishments being levied at 
groups of 2 or more people.

Punishments will follow in cases where at least 1 member has secured funds for 
their activities or been involved in reconnaissance activities regarding a 
target location, the bill also states.

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations stated previously that the bill is 
ambiguous in its scope and its vagueness regarding the definition of terrorist 
organizations and crime groups could lead to the undue punishment of innocent 
civilians and groups.

Civic groups and individual protesters have been taking to the streets with 
large groups gathering in Tokyo in front of the Diet building and outside the 
prime minister's office, holding banners and shouting slogans claiming the bill 
will serve to squash any groups that stand opposed to the government and that 
the bill is undemocratic.

Protesters have also said the bill could take away people's civil rights, is in 
violation of the constitution and could be the next example of Abe's 
administration abusing its majority in parliament to pass laws unilaterally, as 
was the case with the highly-contentious security laws.

While Abe's ruling bloc will almost certainly use its majority to shoot down 
Wednesday's no-confidence motion, the bill being put in front of a committee 
vote will take place on Friday at the earliest and its passage through the 
lower house could be pushed back until next Tuesday as the opposition camp 
redouble their efforts to block its passage at every stage.

(source: xinhuanet.com)






BANGLADESH:

23 get death for killing 4 Narayanganj Awami League activists


23 people including a BNP leader have been awarded death penalty for killing 4 
activists of Awami League and its student wing Bangladesh Chhatra League of 
Araihazar of Narayanganj in 2002.

Kamrunnahar, judge of Narayanganj Second Additional District and Sessions 
Judge's Court, pronounced the verdict today, Additional Public Prosecutor 
Jasmine Ahmed confirmed our district correspondent.

Among the 23 convicts, 4 are on the run while 19 others including Abul Bashar 
Kashu, the then BNP president of Gopaldi union unit, were present at the dock.

According to the prosecution, Kashu and his people picked up Barek, his cousin 
Badal, Faruk and Kabir from their respective houses on March 12 in 2002. Later, 
they tortured and burnt them to death.

Of them, Barek, younger brother of BCL president of Araihazar thana unit and 
upazila vice chairman Rafiqul Islam, was involved with Chhatra League 
activities while Faruk and Kabir were AL activists.

After the delivery of the verdict, Additional Public Prosecutor Jasmine has 
expressed satisfaction over the judgement.

(source: The Daily Star)





SINGAPORE:

Amnesty International calls for scheduled execution for Muhammad Ridzuan be 
halted


Amnesty International today called on the Singapore authorities to halt the 
execution of a Singaporean man scheduled for Friday 19 May 2017 and to 
immediately re-establish a moratorium on all executions with a view to 
abolishing the death penalty.

Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali, a 32 year old-Singaporean national, was sentenced 
to death on 10 April 2013 after he was convicted of trafficking diamorphine 
under the Misuse of Drugs Act. His 4 subsequent appeals were rejected, most 
recently in December 2016. His family learned of the rejection of his clemency 
application on 15 May 2017.

In 2013 the High Court judge found that Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's 
involvement was restricted to that of a "courier". Since November 2012, the 
courts of Singapore have had the discretion not to impose the death penalty in 
certain circumstances. In drug trafficking cases, defendants may be spared the 
death penalty if they are found to have been involved only in transporting, 
sending or delivering a prohibited substance, or only offered to commit these 
acts (as "couriers") and if the Public Prosecutor can certify that they 
cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau to disrupt further drug-related 
activities. Both conditions must be met in order for judges to have the 
discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with caning or death.

However, the Attorney General refused to issue a certificate of cooperation in 
Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's case and he was therefore sentenced to the 
mandatory death penalty. Mohammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's co-defendant, who was 
also convicted of drug trafficking and found to be a "courier" at the same 
trial in 2013, was instead issued with a certificate of cooperation by the 
prosecution and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. 
International human rights law requires that the use of the death penalty be 
restricted to the "most serious crimes".

The UN Human Rights Committee has on numerous occasions found that drug-related 
offences do not meet the criterion of "most serious crimes", a finding 
reiterated by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary 
executions and the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment.

The mandatory imposition of the death penalty is against international human 
rights law. The UN Human Rights Committee has said that "the automatic 
imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, 
in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed 
without any possibility of taking into account the defendant's personal 
circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence".

Furthermore, under Singaporean law, when there is a presumption of drug 
possession for the aim of trafficking, the burden of proof shifts from the 
prosecutor to the defendant. This violates the right to a fair trial and the 
presumption of innocence. Amnesty International calls on the authorities of 
Singapore to immediately halt the execution of Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali and 
any other prisoners and swiftly move to abolish the death penalty once and for 
all.

The authorities of Singapore introduced a moratorium on executions in July 
2012, to allow the Parliament to review the country's mandatory death penalty 
laws. Since executions resumed in 2014, the authorities of Singapore have 
executed at least 11 people, including eight convicted of drug trafficking and 
3 of murder. At least 7 new mandatory death sentences were imposed for drug 
trafficking in 2016 and at least 38 people were on death row at the end of the 
year.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally as a violation 
of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. As of today, 141 
countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; in the Asia 
Pacific region, 19 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes 
and a further eight are abolitionist in practice. There is no evidence that the 
death penalty has a unique deterrent effect on crime.

(source: theonlinecitizen.com)

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

ADPAN calls on Singapore to immediately halt the imminent execution of Muhammad 
Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali


The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) urges the government of Singapore 
to halt the execution of Mr Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali, 31, now said to be 
scheduled on 19 May 2017. We call on the President of the Republic of Singapore 
Tony Tan Keng Yam to show mercy and grant Ridzuan clemency.

Muhammaad Ridzuan and Abdul Haleem were both convicted for 2 charges of 
trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA read with s 34 of the 
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). However, only Abdul Haleem received the 
certificate of substantive assistance. This resulted in them receiving 
different sentences. Abdul Haleem was sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 
strokes of the cane, and Muhammaad Ridzuan was given the mandatory death 
sentence.

In Singapore, for drug offences carrying the mandatory death penalty, it is 
only when the Public Prosecutor issues the certificate of substantive 
assistance pursuant to s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 
Rev Ed) will the courts have the discretion to hand down other sentences, other 
than the death penalty. In Muhammaad Ridzuan's case, despite having provided 
the necessary information to the Central Narcotics Bureau as to who gave him 
the drugs, with full name and identification, he was not given the Certificate, 
thus leaving the judge with no choice but to sentence him to death.

ADPAN is disheartened by the seemingly arbitrary issuance of the Certificates 
of Substantive Assistance by the prosecution. Discretion on sentencing must be 
with the courts. It is totally unjustifiable for the Public Prosecutor to have 
the ultimate power to decide who gets issued the Certificate, consequently, who 
gets to live or who not.

While we understand Singapore's public health concerns on the entry of illegal 
drugs, we strongly oppose the use of death penalty as a solution. There is no 
evidence of efficacy of the death penalty in solving addiction or the entry of 
prohibited substances, even in Singapore. Despite carrying out executions, the 
Singaporean authorities continue to arrest drug mules and intercept large 
amounts of illegal drugs. The death penalty has shown to be not a deterrent.

Ridzuan was not raised in the best of circumstances, having to grapple with 
poverty that pushed him into working a series of jobs to contribute to his 
family's income. Ridzuan did not get the best opportunities in life and he has 
realised his wrongdoings while in prison, and we believe he has demonstrated 
the potential for rehabilitation. His family has attested how he renewed 
showing more maturity in his words and actions. The execution on Friday, if to 
take place, will deprive a changed man of his right to life. In a statement, 
his family have pointed out that there would be no opportunity for him to 
commit a similar crime if his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

The death penalty is an affront to human dignity. It disregards the right to 
life, the very basis of all human rights. ADPAN believes that these rights 
should be protected by the State at all times. We therefore ask the President 
and the Government of Singapore to show mercy and stop Ridzuan's execution, and 
to establish a moratorium on all executions with a view to abolishing the death 
penalty.

Ngeow Chow Ying; For and on behalf of the ADPAN Executive Committee

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is an independent cross-regional 
network committed to working for an end to the death penalty across the Asia 
Pacific region. ADPAN is made up of NGOs, organizations, civil society groups, 
lawyers and individual members, not linked to any political party, religion or 
government and campaigns against the death penalty. It currently has members in 
28 countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Denmark, France, Hong 
Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, 
New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sri 
Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam, UK, USA.

(source: adpan.org)

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

2 charged for same crime but only 1 will hang - Prosecutor's role raises 
questions


The 2 men were charged for the same crime of drug trafficking but because of a 
technicality, only 1 of them will be hanged.

On Wednesday, his clemency appeal to the President was rejected. In Singapore, 
clemency petitions are decided by the Cabinet, and the President has no choice 
but to accede to it.

The fate of 32-year old Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali is now sealed, pending some 
miracle, and he will be executed on Friday.

He was arrested along with Abdul Haleem in 2010 for trafficking 72.5g of heroin 
into Singapore.

Abdul Haleem, however, was spared the death sentence because he was granted the 
Certificate of Cooperation (COC) by the Prosecutor, while Muhammad was denied 
one.

Muhammad's pending execution has thus once again shines the spotlight on what 
anti-death penalty activists call a flaw in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) - the 
Public Prosecutor's powers vis a vis the COC.

In Singapore, the Attorney General is also the Public Prosecutor, unlike in 
some other countries where the 2 roles are separate.

Under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), a trafficker can be spared the 
death sentence if he satisfies 2 criteria:

That his role in trafficking drugs was that of a courier, and nothing more

That the Prosecutor has issued him a COC

The convict should also have helped in "disrupting drug trafficking activities 
within or outside Singapore."

The Prosecutor, during the court case, has in fact certified that Muhammad was 
a mere courier. However, for unknown reasons, the Prosecutor also decided not 
to issue him the COC which would have allowed Muhammad to apply to the court to 
have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the 
cane, as was the case with Abdul Haleem.

"Despite the finding by the Court that Ridzuan was a mere courier, the Public 
Prosecutor refused to give Ridzuan a certificate of substantial assistance," 
Eugene Thuraisingam, Muhammad's lawyer, posted on his Facebook page following 
the president's rejection of clemency.

"The Public Prosecutor however gave his joint trafficker, Abdul Haleem a 
certificate of substantial assistance. Ridzuan was therefore sentenced to 
death, while Abdul Haleem was given a certificate of substantial assistance and 
sentence to life imprisonment."

During sentencing by the courts, Abdul Haleem had asked to be given the same 
sentence as Muhammad Ridzuan, if the latter was sent to the gallows.

The Straits Times reported the exchange between Abdul Haleem and judge Tay Yong 
Kwang:

Choking with emotion, he [Abdul Haleem] told Justice Tay Yong Kwang: "If you 
are sparing my life and not sparing his life, I???d rather go down with him."

But the judge replied: "The court does not have complete discretion to do 
whatever you want me do."

Abdul Haleem then pointed out that he and his friend faced the same charges.

The judge told him: "You have certification from the Attorney-General's 
Chambers, he does not."

In effect, the Public Prosecutor now has power over the courts as well: if the 
Public Prosecutor does not issue a convict with the COC, the courts cannot 
commute his sentence.

Yet, in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), the Prosecutor's decision making, in 
whether a COC is issued or not, is shrouded in secrecy and not even the highest 
court in the land, the Court of Appeal, can question it, or conduct a judicial 
review of it unless "it is proved to the court that the determination was done 
in bad faith or with malice."

The MDA states:

"THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN 
HIS SOLE DISCRETION. NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL LIE AGAINST THE PUBLIC 
PROSECUTOR IN RELATION TO ANY SUCH DETERMINATION UNLESS IT IS PROVED TO THE 
COURT THAT THE DETERMINATION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH OR WITH MALICE."

In short, the Prosecutor has iron-clad, virtually unfettered powers to decide 
whether a person gets to live or die.

Such dubious decisions, done behind closed doors and with complete 
non-transparency, can result in inexplicable outcomes, as it is with 
Muhammad???s case, where 2 men charged for the same crime can receive exactly 
opposite punishments.

"Ridzuan told the [Central Narcotics Bureau] who gave him the drugs," said his 
sister Noraisah. "He gave them a description, with full name and 
identification. I feel that this information is quite strong, and I don't know 
why they said that they are still not happy with it."

No one knows why the Prosecutor decided to issue Abdul Haleem the COC, while 
denying the same to Muhammad Ridzuan because the Prosecutor is not required by 
law to release or explain his reasons, either to the convict's lawyers or even 
to his family.

Everything is decided behind a veil of silence and secrecy.

It is disturbing that a person can be condemned to his death just because he is 
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police in "disrupting drug 
trafficking activities within or outside Singapore."

Whether drug trafficking activities are "disrupted" or not depends on so many 
different factors, most of which would be beyond the control of the inmate.

For example, it would depend on whether the authorities actually act on 
information provided by the inmate.

It would also depend on whether the authorities take the appropriate action, or 
are competent in doing so.

And how would an inmate incarcerated on death row in Changi Prison in Singapore 
be able to "disrupt" drug activities "outside Singapore"? Would this not depend 
entirely on how the authorities act on the information provided by the inmate?

With the law prohibiting any judicial review or questioning of the Prosecutor's 
decision, except when such decision is proved to have been made on bad faith or 
malice, there really is no way of knowing if the Prosecutor has done the right 
or necessary thing in acting on the information provided by the inmate.

Clearly, this practice of vesting the Prosecutor with so much power is highly 
flawed.

His decision and decision-making process are effectively unquestionable, giving 
him seemingly unfettered authority.

Such absurdity has resulted in decisions which allow one person to be spared 
death while another, charged for the same crime, is sent to the gallows.

The rule of law insists that decisions, especially those involving capital 
punishment which are irreversible, must be made according to the law, and must 
be opened to review or question.

In 2011, lawyer M Ravi filed a constitutional challenge on the case of Yong Vui 
Kong, which centred on whether the Cabinet's decision in granting clemency is 
opened to judicial review.

The Court of Appeal, in its ruling, said "the making of a clemency decision 
pursuant to Art 22P is now 'not a private act of grace from an individual 
happening to possess power ... [but] a part of the [c]onstitutional scheme'."

Article 22P refers to the president's powers to grant clemencies.

The Court of Appeal said that if "conclusive evidence is produced to the court 
to show that the Cabinet never met to consider the offender's case at all, or 
that the Cabinet did not consider the Art 22P(2) materials placed before it and 
merely tossed a coin to determine what advice to give to the President, the 
Cabinet would have acted in breach of Art 22P(2)."

The Court added:

"IF THE COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE TO CORRECT A BREACH OF ART 22P OF THIS NATURE, 
THE RULE OF LAW WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY."

Would it also not follow that if the courts are unable to intervene and 
question the Prosecutor's decision on granting the COC, there is a risk that 
the Prosecutor could make an erroneous decision based on wrong facts or even on 
superficial whims which, under existing laws, could result in the death of an 
inmate?

Yet the law says such decisions "shall be at the sole discretion of the Public 
Prosecutor... unless it is proved to the court that the determination was done 
in bad faith or with malice."

The granting, or not, of a COC by the Prosecutor, to borrow the words of the 
Court of Appeal, is 'not a private act of grace from an individual happening to 
possess power.'

It is in fact from constitutional powers vested in him which should make him 
accountable, and not protected behind a wall of opacity.

And if he is to be accountable, then surely his decisions must be opened to 
judicial review.

Why was Haleem Abdul spared death, while Muhammad Ridzuan was not?

How is it that a person can be condemned to death just simply because he is 
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police?

How did we arrive at a law which says that not cooperating with the police is, 
effectively, a capital offence?

(source: theindependent.sg)






INDIA:

Death for 2 convicts in Thane gangrape-murder: Rarest of rare, says court, 
draws parallel with Delhi case----'Apart from the sheer brutality of their act, 
their apathy towards human life is reflected from their behaviour', says the 
court order; convicts had raped 2 ragpicker women and assaulted them with sharp 
weapons, killing 1 of them


sessions court that sentenced 2 men to death last week in a case of gangrape 
and murder has observed that the case falls within the purview of the "rarest 
of rare" category owing to its brutality and the fact that the accused took 
advantage of 2 women by luring them with the promise of a job.

"Apart from the sheer brutality of their act, their apathy towards human life 
is reflected from their behaviour of taking the girls from the railway station 
by saying that they will provide them job and instead...took both the victims 
to another place and thereafter committed offence. (It) also discloses that 
they have breached the trust of the victims, therefore, it clearly indicates 
that this would really fall within the category of rarest of rare case," the 
court has said in its detailed order.

The victims, who worked as ragpickers, were promised a catering job by the 2 
accused, Rahimuddin Shaikh and Sandip Shirsath, in 2012. The 2 women were 
eventually taken to an isolated spot in CBD Belapur in Navi Mumbai and made to 
consume liquor by the accused. After that, the 2 women were allegedly raped and 
also assaulted with sharp weapons, including a hacksaw blade and a knife. While 
both the women were left to die, 1 of them managed to escape. A rickshaw-puller 
saw her lying unconscious in an injured state and informed the police. She had 
sustained 16 injuries on her body, including on her neck, legs and stomach and 
remained in a hospital for almost a month for treatment.

The court heavily relied on the deposition of the survivor, who was around 
18-19 years old at the time of the incident. The court also relied on the 
statement of a colleague of the 2 accused who worked as caterers. The colleague 
had told the court that on the day of the incident, the men returned to their 
staff room in an inebriated state and claimed to have killed a woman. He 
claimed that since the men were drunk, he did not pay attention to their claim. 
On the next day, when he read in the newspaper that a woman was found raped and 
killed in Belapur, he realised it could have been his colleagues and informed 
the police when he was approached for inquiry, he told the court.

The defence claimed that the men were falsely implicated and said the chemical 
analyser report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory were inconclusive 
as no semen was detected on the victims. They further argued that no injuries 
were found on the private parts of the victims and the results of DNA tests 
conducted on the accused were also not received. The court, however, concluded 
that the absence of injury on private parts is not a ground to conclude there 
was no rape as the victims could have been threatened and hence, did not 
resist.

The court also referred to the recent confirmation of death penalty to the 
accused in the December 16, 2012 gangrape in Delhi to conclude that the present 
case also falls in the rarest of rare category for the nature of the offence 
and the manner in which it was committed. The court also said since the men 
returned to their workplace in a drunken state after the incident, it indicates 
they had no remorse.

The court also turned down the defence's contention that since the victims had 
consumed liquor, it meant "passive consent" for the act. The court observed 
that in the incident, one victim ended up dead as she was assaulted with a 
hexablade (sic) and a knife and the other victim too was assaulted after being 
raped. "So the evidence shows that both of them had never consented for the 
alleged act of rape, if they would have consented for that then such brutal act 
would not have occurred," the court observed in its 97-page judgment. It 
directed the 2 accused to pay Rs 15,000 each as compensation to the injured 
victim and the kin of the deceased victim. The District Legal Services 
Authority, Thane, has also been asked to recommend the quantum of compensation 
to be paid to the victim.

(source: indianexpress.com)






PAKISTAN----executions

Pak executes 4 terrorists convicted by military courts

Pakistan Wednesday hanged 4 "hardcore" terrorists convicted of "heinous" 
terrorism-related offences by controversial military courts in the restive 
northwestern province, taking the number to over 160 since the Peshawar terror 
attack in 2014.

The terrorists belonging to a banned outfit were executed in a jail in the 
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, the worst hit due to violence by Taliban 
terrorists.

"They were involved in committing heinous offences relating to terrorism, 
including killing of innocent civilians, destruction of educational 
institutions, attacking Armed Forces of Pakistan and Law Enforcement Agencies," 
the army said.

It said the terrorists were awarded death sentence by the military courts which 
work in secrecy due to fear of attacks by militants.

Military courts were restored in March for another 2 years after their initial 
2-year term expired in January.

The courts were set up after a constitutional amendment following a terror 
attack on an Army-run school in Peshawar in December 2014 which killed more 
than 150 people, most of them students.

Human rights group Justice Project Pakistan says 441 people have been executed 
since the Peshawar attack.

Pakistan has been fighting various extremist groups for over a decade. Militant 
attacks have killed tens of thousands of people.

The military courts have handed down the death penalty to more than 160 
militants.

(source: business-standard.com)




IRAN:

DECKS ARE CLEARED FOR KEY EXECUTIONER TO BECOME NEXT PRESIDENT OF IRAN


The withdrawal of hard-line candidate Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf from Iran's 
presidential election is a sure sign that the decks are being cleared to make 
way for notorious executioner and former State Prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi. This 
was the view expressed today by Struan Stevenson, international lecturer on the 
Middle East and former Member of the European Parliament. Speaking in 
Edinburgh, Mr Stevenson said: "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has 
for some time now been critical of the incumbent president Hassan Rouhani, whom 
he considers too weak to deal with the new muscular challenge posed by the 
Trump administration. Khamenei has even criticised some of Rouhani's election 
slogans where the president claimed the nuclear deal he brokered with the West 
had removed 'the shadow of war' from Iran.

"Khamenei is alarmed at accusations by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who 
has accused Iran of being the world's main sponsor of terror. He now wants 
Rouhani to be removed from office and replaced by the ultra hard-line 
executioner Raisi, a senior cleric who wears the black turban, signifying his 
direct descendancy from the Prophet Mohammad. Raisi was a key member of the 
'Death Commission' who in 1988 ordered the execution of over 30,000 political 
prisoners. Clearly Raisi's blood-encrusted legacy is more appealing to Khamenei 
than the record of the so-called 'moderate' Rouhani, under whose repressive 
leadership more than 3,000 people have been executed since he took office in 
2013, making Iran the world's number 1 death penalty nation per-capita.

"Clearly Khamenei has ordered Qalibaf to withdraw from the race, to avoid 
splitting the hard-line ultra conservative vote in the 1st round of elections 
on Friday 19th May. Khamenei's manipulation of the Iranian elections exposes 
the fact that they are a sham and a scandal. Over 1,000 people initially 
registered as potential candidates, only to be disqualified by the Supreme 
Leader Khamenei. Those disqualified from standing even included former 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who although considered a fanatical tyrant by 
the West, was also clearly thought to be too soft to face the new robust 
approach from the US administration.

"There are increasing signs of widespread protests across Iran, with the 
emergence of courageous posters and banners proclaiming support for regime 
change and for the outlawed key democratic opposition movement the People's 
Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI). Most of the 30,000 political prisoners hanged in 1988 
by Ebrahim Raisi were supporters of the PMOI. Their ghosts may yet return to 
haunt him."

Struan Stevenson, President of the European Iraqi Freedom Association (EIFA), 
was a Member of the European Parliament representing Scotland (1999-2014). He 
was President of the Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Iraq (2009- 
2014) and Chair of Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup (Caucus) from 2004-2014.

(source: irannewsupdate.com)