[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

December 3




GAZA:

Gaza court sentences 6 people to hang for 'collaborating' with Israel



A military court in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip on Monday sentenced 6 people, 
including a woman, to death by hanging for "collaborating" with Israel, 
authorities said.

In total 14 people were sentenced for "collaborating with the occupation," with 
6 sentenced to be hanged, the interior ministry in Gaza said.

The rulings come 3 weeks after 8 people were killed when an alleged Israeli 
army cell in Gaza was uncovered, leading to a vicious fire fight.

Hamas fired hundreds of rockets at Israel in response, wit h the Jewish state 
striking dozens of targets in Gaza before a ceasefire agreement.

The 6 sentenced to death Monday were not related to the November 11 flareup.

The woman, named only as Amal, was sentenced in absentia and is alleged to have 
encouraged her nephew in Gaza to collaborate with Israeli intelligence.

Iyad al-Bozum, the spokesman of the interior ministry in Hamas-ruled Gaza, 
hailed the rulings.

"Collaborators must realise the (Israeli) occupation will not be able to 
protect them," he told a news conference.

Hamas and its allies have fought 3 wars with Israel since 2008.

(source: al-monitor.com)








IRAN----juvenile execution

Execution of the 6th Juvenile Offender in 2018



A juvenile offender who had been sentenced to death for committing an alleged 
murder at the age of 16, was hanged at Rajai Shahr prison. Iran Human Rights 
(IHR) had previously reported about the execution of 10 prisoners at Rajai 
Shahr Prison on November 14, 2018. New documents obtained by IHR show that one 
of the executed prisoners was a juvenile offender identifies as Omid Rostami. 
Omid Rostami is the 6th juvenile offender executed by Iranian authorities in 
2018.

IHR strongly condemns Omid Rostami's execution and calls for strong 
international reactions. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR said: 
" The international community must not tolerate Iranian authorities' continuous 
executions of juvenile offenders. We expect stronger reactions by the EU and 
the Norwegian government which have ongoing dialogues with the Iranian 
authorities and which are regarded as the world leaders in the fight against 
the death penalty. Attempts to save the nuclear deal must not lead to closed 
eyes on juvenile executions and other serious human rights violations by the 
Iranian authorities ".

Omid Rostami's birth certificate shows that he was born on July 10, 1996. He 
was sentenced to death for a murder committed on July 12, 2012, 2 days after 
his 16th birthday.

Omid had been subjected to additional psychological torture by being taken to 
the gallows 4 times earlier. Each time, the plaintiffs (victim's family) had 
said that they wanted to rethink about carrying out the execution or forgiving 
him.

According to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code (IPC) murder is punishable by qisas 
which means “retribution in kind” or retaliation. In this way, the State 
effectively puts the responsibility of the death sentence for murder on the 
shoulders of the victim’s family. In many cases, the victim's family are 
encouraged to put the rope is around the prisoner's neck and even carry out the 
actual execution by pulling off the chair the prisoner is standing on.

“On September 4, 2018, the prosecutor told the plaintiffs that they have the 
maximum of 1 month time to take their final decision to forgive Omid or carry 
out his execution. Otherwise, Omid should be released on bail,” the juvenile 
offender’s mother told IHR.

Finally, the plaintiffs went to the prison and carried out Omid's execution on 
the early morning of November 14, 2018.

The Islamic Penal Code (IPC) puts the age of criminal responsibility for males 
at 15 and 9 for females. In case of murder and other offenses punishable by 
Hadd or qisas, article 91 of the amended IPC of 2013 allows judges to use their 
discretion and not issue a death sentence against a child who was not able to 
understand the nature and consequences of the crime at the time. The amended 
law also allows the courts to rely on “the opinion of a forensic doctor or 
other means it deems appropriate” to establish whether a defendant understood 
the consequences of their actions.

However, according to Omid's family, he didn't have a lawyer, and the family's 
request for a forensic examination of Omid was not accepted by the judge. 
According to Omid’s mother, the juvenile had 2 previous records of robbery and 
convictions, and the Court took that as a proof of his maturity and therefore, 
didn't send Omid's case to forensic medicine.

Despite ratifying the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child 
which bans the death penalty for offenses committed at under 18 years of age, 
Iran stays the world's top executioner of juvenile offenders. According to 
reports by IHR, Iranian authorities have executed at least 40 juvenile 
offenders since 2013.

(source: Iran Human Rights)








BANGLADESH:

Bangladesh tries 8 over deadly cafe attack



8 alleged Islamist extremists went on trial in Bangladesh on Monday (Dec 3) 
over a savage 2016 attack claimed by Islamic State that killed 22 people 
including 18 foreigners at a Dhaka cafe popular with Westerners.

Prosecutors say that the 8 members of a homegrown extremist outfit were 
"associates" of the 5 attackers killed when police stormed the Holey Artisan 
Bakery cafe.

The 8, who face the death penalty if convicted, "helped mastermind the attack 
and supplied arms and ammunition," prosecutor Jahangir Alam Chowdhury told AFP.

6 defendants were present with 2 having absconded. More than 200 witnesses have 
been called in a special anti-terrorism court in the old part of the capital 
Dhaka under tight security.

The brazen assault in July 2016 saw young men armed with assault rifles and 
machetes lay siege to the cafe in Dhaka's well-heeled Gulshan neighbourhood.

In addition to 22 civilians, 2 policemen were killed. Military commandos took 
over the cafe after a 10-hour standoff and freed more than two dozen hostages.

The attack claimed by the Islamic State group fuelled tensions over Islamist 
extremism in the Muslim-majority nation of 165 million people in South Asia.

Police have said the aim of the attack was to destabilise the country and turn 
it into a militant state.

8 others - including the attack's mastermind Tamim Ahmed Chowdhury, a Canadian 
of Bangladesh descent - were killed during raids in Dhaka and its suburbs 
months after the incident.

They included commanders of a new faction of the homegrown extremist group 
Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) that police blamed for the attack.

The government has repeatedly denied that international jihadist networks have 
a presence in Bangladesh.

The IS-linked news agency Amaq however published extensive details of the 
attack, including gory images from inside the cafe.

The hostage crisis marked an escalation from a spate of murders claimed by IS 
and Al-Qaeda of atheist writers, rights activists, gays, foreigners and 
religious minorities since 2013.

It was seen as a major blow to the country's image as a moderate Muslim nation.

(source: channelnewsasia.com)








CHINA:

Nation moves to limit use of capital punishment



Amendments to the laws related to criminal affairs have gradually reduced the 
number of offenses punishable by death.

Editor's note: This is the 2nd in a series of stories reflecting China's 
achievements in fields such as science, law enforcement, education and 
transportation resulting from 40 years of the reform and opening-up policy. 
More stories will follow in the coming weeks.

In the 40 years since China adopted the reform and opening-up policy, the 
country has moved to gradually limit the use of the death penalty, a punishment 
that was once seen as a cornerstone in the fight to deter offenders and 
maintain public order.

Experts say the move away from capital punishment is partly a result of the 
nation's growing economic strength, but is also motivated by a desire to 
prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice.

Zhou Guangquan, a professor of criminal law at Tsinghua University in Beijing, 
often uses the case of Nie Shubin as an example.

In 1995, Nie was executed at the age of 21 after being convicted of raping and 
killing a woman in Hebei province. In 2016, however, the Supreme People's 
Court, China's top court, quashed Nie's conviction and pronounced him not 
guilty posthumously after ruling that the evidence presented at his trial had 
been obtained illegally and could not guarantee a flawless conviction.

Moreover, in 2013, during a trial at Handan Intermediate People's Court in 
Hebei, a man named Wang Shujin confessed to the crimes that led to Nie's 
execution.

Cases such as Nie's demonstrate that the death penalty must be used in a 
prudent and controlled fashion, according to Zhou, who was pleased to see 
greater restrictions on its use written into a report issued at the Third 
Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 
in 2013.

"It was a signal that capital punishment would be used less frequently in 
China," he said, adding that the loss of a young life and the anguish suffered 
by Nie's family "was too devastating to be erased by simply overturning the 
conviction".

Mo Hongxian, a professor of law at Wuhan University, Hubei province, who has 
focused on the use of the death penalty since 1997, said the report was 
probably the 1st time the prudent application of capital punishment had been 
mentioned in a national-level document.

"It can be regarded as a display of firm support for the drive to limit the use 
of the death penalty in the past 2 decades," she said.

A key move in 2007 saw the Supreme People's Court being given the power of 
final arbitration over the use of capital punishment, meaning it has to approve 
all death sentences passed by lower-level courts. Meanwhile, "innocent until 
proven guilty" and "punishment stipulated by law" were enshrined as basic 
principles in the Criminal Law.

In 2011, the death penalty was abolished for dozens of nonviolent crimes, such 
as fraud of financial documents and theft.

"These measures illustrate the country's determination to protect human rights" 
said Mo, who was born in 1954 and has witnessed all 40 years of reform and 
opening-up.

She added that the changes were a direct result of China's rapid economic 
development, stronger management of public security and the public's growing 
legal awareness, and noted that the abolition of the death penalty for a 
growing number of crimes is in line with global trends.

Although the number of people sentenced to death every year is never disclosed, 
both Mo and Zhou are optimistic about further reductions in the use of capital 
punishment for a wide range of nonviolent crimes.

(source: ecns.cn)








INDIA:

Why we should rethink the death penalty----We execute the poor. The rich get 
off.



Justice Kurian Joseph’s judgment of November 28 in Chhannulal; 2 days before he 
retired asks us whether a rethink on death penalty is called for.

Before we proceed, we must note Justice Joseph’s approach that the law is both 
severity and kindness. This has been characteristic of his approach in all 
matters in his career as a judge in Kerala, as Chief Justice of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court and Judge in the Supreme Court.

It is reminiscent of Brecht famous phrase that “we who fight for kindness must 
ourselves be kind”.

This does not mean that the severity of the law would be compromised where 
necessary. But, the image of the law as blindfolded or angry must yield to a 
balance both as a matter of form and substance. The “law” and “judges” are not 
angels of death.

Blood-thirsty

The death penalty is not a stranger to India. Those in favour of the harshness 
of the law also espouse a thirst for retribution and public vengeance.

The contrary view is espoused not just on the ground that death penalty is 
irreversible and mistakes cannot be rectified. But that state executions are 
also a form of state sanctioned murder and inconsistent with principles of 
sentencing and penology.

Throughout the ages, the “public” have always not just made blood-thirsty 
demands for death by hanging, guillotine, electric shock, injections or 
otherwise. Many have also enjoyed the gruesome spectacle. The annals of life 
and literature are full of this.

Of course, now there are no public executions except in some countries which 
show beheading after supposed finding of guilt. People watch this both in 
horror and awe on the spot and television amidst conflicting deep psychological 
factors of approval and sense of inhumanity.

Usually, the death penalty is for murder and forms of treason.

Asia Bibi in Pakistan was tried for blasphemy. Would it be enough if we follow 
one Indian Law Commission’s view for more humane methods of execution (i.e. 
chemically)?

India has not signed the Convention on Torture of 1984-87 and voted in favour 
of the Death Penalty in the UN General Assembly in 2007 and 2012.

In India, politically private Bill for abolition was supported by the Hindu 
Mahasabha, NC Chatterjee pointed to innocents being hung.

In 1958, actor Prithvi Raj Kapoor wanted a Committee to examine abolition.

In 1961 and 1962 there was further support for abolition. The 1973 Criminal 
Code demanded reasons for imposing death penalty. The Verma Committee (2013) 
following the Nirbhaya rape-murder did not favour death penalty.

While the Law Commission had earlier argued for retaining death penalty in its 
35th Report, the AP Shah headed Law Commission in 2015 argued against it. 
Delhi’s National Law School Study that death penalty is imposed on the poor and 
Blackshield 1976 analysis showed inconsistency in Supreme Court impositions. 
Recent judgments of the Supreme Court ordained special hearing in death cases.

Populist demands

Earlier, the Supreme Court wavered but eventually Bachan Singh (1980) emerged 
with the formula of death penalty of the rarest of rare case to which Machhi 
Singh (1983) elaborated that this meant in cases of gravest culpability with 
guidelines on aggravating circumstances. But many disturbing comments also come 
from judgments as in Surja Ram (1994) that punishment must respond “to 
society’s cry for justice against the criminal”.

This puts a premium on populist demands.

There are problems of delay in execution and the pardoning power.

We have to examine death penalties in the Calcutta rape case (2004), Auto 
Shankar (1995) Nirbhaya (2015) as also executions of Kasab (2012), Afzal Guru 
(2013), Yakub Memon (2015) to set a balance on atrocity and terror cases even 
though in some cases (such as Afzal) great doubt exists.

In the Justice Kurian judgment (2018), Chhannulal used a knife to kill 3 
members of the Sahu family and caused grievous injury to another. Earlier, in 
another case, the accused had been acquitted of rape. The trial court and High 
Court denied mitigating circumstances.

The Supreme Court tellingly asked whether the accused had attempted to 
positively reform himself and genuinely regretted his act as indicated by 
Bachan Singh. On this, all 3 judges (Kurien Joseph, Deepak Gupta and Hemant 
Gupta) felt that death be commuted to life. Thus, the ‘reform’ and rarest of 
rare tests were applied.

Arbitrarily imposed

But, 2 judges (Gupta and Gupta JJ) without reasons disagreed with Justice 
Joseph’s view that the time had come to review where death penalty be 
abolished, relying on the Law Commission’s report that death penalty was 
“arbitrarily and freakishly imposed” and had not served useful deterrent 
effects.

But even in this case of intentional and bloody murder, all 3 judges felt that 
death sentence be commuted to life.

Are we now saying the death penalty be reserved for rape, murders and 
terrorism?

But all 3 judges agreed that though the law presently permitted death penalty, 
the element of reformist potential cannot be ignored. The case for abolition of 
death penalty is supported not just by the Law Commission, but also by the 
Amnesty and Delhi National Law School reports.

We execute the poor. The rich get off.

The throw-away sentence of the Supreme Court that populist demands must be 
accepted defeats the rule of law as for Asia in Pakistan.

The lack of deterring effect undermines continuing death penalty. The reformist 
perspective is significant. We need to take the final step towards abolition 
amidst the horrifying pathological drumbeat demanding death.

Justice Joseph was the conscience of the court. He shall be missed.

(source: dailyo.in)