[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

December 6



CANADA/IRAN:

Canada “Deeply Concerned” over Fate on Environmental Researcher in Iran



The Canadian government says that it is “deeply concerned” about the continued 
detention of environmental researcher Niloufar Bayani, who is facing the death 
penalty in Iran on vague security charges.

On Friday, Global Affairs Canada spokesperson Richard Walker said the Canadian 
government “is deeply concerned” about Bayani’s detention and remains 
“committed to holding Iran to account for its violations of human and 
democratic rights”.

Bayani, who is being held in Iran’s notorious Evin prison, was arrested back in 
January by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), alongside eight other 
environmental activists who were monitoring the endangered Asiatic cheetah with 
motion-activated camera traps.

The arrests have been condemned by scientists, environmentalists and human 
rights activists, with anthropologist Jane Goodall being just one of 350 
conservations, scholars and researchers from 70 countries calling for the 
environmentalists to receive “fair and just” treatment.

Bayani’s friends and colleagues, especially those who knew her from her biology 
degree at McGill University or her work at the United Nations Environment 
Program in Geneva, have also criticised her imprisonment in an effort to 
attract public attention and pressure for her release. Anthony Ricciardi, a 
McGill University biologist for whom Bayani was a research assistant, explained 
that he is “worried about her safety”.

Sadly, he has good reason to be. Professor Kavous Seyed-Emami, 63, the 
Iranian-Canadian head of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation that Bayani 
works for was one of those arrested with her. He died under suspicious 
circumstances in Evin prison just 3 weeks later and, while officials claim it 
was suicide, his family and the United Nations want an independent 
investigation.

The IRGC has said the cheetah research was cover for espionage on behalf of the 
US and Israel, which even the Iranian Parliament have dismissed, but the 
environmentalists have still been held. Now 5 of them have been charged with 
“sowing corruption on earth”, a “crime” punishable by death, with no evidence 
presented to support this theory.

Ricciardi said: “They’re field ecologists and in this particular case they were 
trying to track a declining species. If you want to find something rare you 
can’t sit there all day waiting for the animal to come by, and it might be 
spooked by you. So you set up cameras instead.”

Of course, the truth is that the environment has become a contentious political 
issue in Iran and anyone seeking to tell the truth about the Regime’s disregard 
for it is risking their lives. After all, the Regime can ill-afford any more 
popular protests against it.

Ricciardi said: “[Bayani] must have known some of the risks (or working in 
Iran) but she did it anyway. That’s courage. From what I’ve seen of her here, 
I’m not surprised.”

Human Rights Watch reported that the environmentalists have not been allowed 
access to lawyers of their own choosing and no trial date has been set.

(source: ncr-iran.org)








GAMBIA:

'New Constitution Should Make Provision for Stronger Death Penalty'



Lamin Ceesay of Jarra Japineh village in the Lower River Region of the Gambia, 
said the death penalty should not be abolished in the proposed new 
Constitution, because it is a deterrent to the crime rate and killing of people 
without any genuine reasons.

Ceesay said this in response to questions posed by Commissioner Yankuba 
Manjang, on the death penalty in the 1997 Constitution, during the engagement 
of the people of Japineh with the CRC on the 3rd of December 2018.

"The death penalty should not be eliminated, but the manner in which it is 
conducted, needs to be looked at," he said. Ceesay said that during the 
previous Government, the death penalty was in the Constitution. But that people 
thought it was Government that was killing convicted people. He suggested that 
the proposed new Constitution should make provision for individuals to be 
jailed for the rest of their lives, when they commit such crimes," he said. 
Ceesay contributed further that election dates should be determined by National 
Assembly Members, and not by the president. "The president is a politician. He 
may decide to choose a day that will not favour opposition parties in order to 
stay in power," he said.

Commissioner Manjang further explained that in the 1997 Constitution, 
citizenship is captured under different categorizes; that it explains that 
citizenship can be acquired by birth, when either of or both parents of the 
person are Gambians; that the other is by naturalization; that it explains that 
when one spends fifteen years in the country and fulfils all his or her 
requirements of qualification, the person can become a citizen.

Manjang further added that there is citizenship by marriage, and asked the 
people to give their opinions and contributions on the category or categories 
of citizenship they want the proposed new Constitution to make provision for.

Commissioner Manjang further engaged the people on the issue of Diaspora 
Gambians and prisoner's voting rights. "The prisoners should they vote or not?" 
he questioned.

Abba Sanneh of Japineh village said prisoners should vote. "They have the right 
to vote. Some of them are in prison for breaking the Law, but this should not 
prevent them from exercising their fundamental rights as citizens," he said.

Sanneh contributed that the categorized citizenship is very difficult to deal 
with, especially the one dealing with those whose parents came to this country 
and had them born here. "These kinds of people do not know any other country 
than where they were born, and that is the Gambia. So, they really deserve to 
be citizens," he told the CRC delegation.

Women and youth in their focal group discussions, looked at some important 
issues in the 1997 Constitution, ranging from Citizenship, the fate of 
prisoners and Diaspora Gambians, the death penalty, the appointment of 
Governors, the Auditor General, the Alkalos and Chiefs etc.

Women expressing themselves at a CRC constitutional review meeting in Japineh.

(source: allafrica.com)








SOUTH KOREA:

Korean bishops light up shrine to oppose death penalty----Still no word from 
government as protest movement enters 12th year



A martyrs' shrine in Seoul that served as a former execution site was 
illuminated recently to highlight the Catholic community's opposition to the 
continued use of the death penalty in the country.

The Justice and Peace Commission of the South Korean Bishops' Conference 
spearheaded the move.

The lighting ceremony at the Jeoldusan Martyrs' Shrine took place on Nov. 30 
and was attended by a smattering of civil and religious groups.

The slogan attached to one of the walls of the religious relic was illuminated 
in yellow, blue and green. It read: "Life Peace, Abolitionist Country Korea, 
Abolition of Death Penalty."

Scores of Korean Catholics were decapitated at the shrine, the name of which 
literally translates as the "Mountain of Beheading."

"Sadly, people's awareness of the death penalty has barely grown despite the 
church's efforts to abolish this form of punishment," said Sister Jean Marc Cho 
Sung-ai from the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres.

"Many people think inmates on death row deserve to die for their crimes, but 
most of them come from poor families and are not well educated. Society must 
accept some of the responsibility for not giving them the chance to grow up 
with a proper education, so we cannot lay all of the blame for their brutal 
crimes at their feet."

Sister Sung-ai is hailed as a "godmother" by many waiting to be executed by the 
state for the crimes they have committed.

"Now is the time for the government to abolish capital punishment," she added.

Korean bishops chose Nov. 30 as it commemorates the day when Pietro Leopoldo, 
the Grand Duke of Tuscany, abolished the death penalty in 1786.

The bishops' committee has held similar lighting "protests" at various venues 
in Seoul including Myeongdong Cathedral, City Hall, and Seodaemun Prison 
History Museum since 2006.

So far, the government has not issued any official response.

(source: ucanews.com)




PAKISTAN:

3 Of Family Convicted In Sargodha



Additional district and sessions judge Jauhrabad Ashfaq Ahmad on Wednesday 
handed down capital punishment on 2 counts with a fine of Rs 1.2 million to a 
man and his 2 sons involved in a double murder case.

According to the prosecution, Azmat Ali, resident of Block-4,Jauharabad with 
the abetement of his 2 sons named Liaqat Ali and Shaokat Ali had gunned down 
his neighbours Behzad Ashraf and Danial Rafiq over a petty issue on October 24, 
2016.

(source: urdupoint.com)








INDIA:

Honour killing case: Man gets death penalty for murdering sister



A local court here awarded death penalty to a 26-year-old man Wednesday for 
murdering his sister.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Pankaj awarded the sentence to Ashok, 
26, a resident of Juglan village in Hisar district.

Ashok was held guilty of murdering his sister Kiran on February 9, 2017.

According to prosecution, Rohtas of Siswal village had a love marriage with 
Kiranon August 8, 2015. The woman's family had opposed their marriage as Rohtas 
belonged to a different community.

On February 9, 2017, Kiran was murdered under suspicious circumstances in 
Juglan village. She was later cremated in the village by her family members.

A police complaint was subsequently lodged after the man, who had helped 
register their marriage, raised suspicion alleging that Kiran's death could be 
a case of honour killing.

The police later arrested Ashok, the brother of the deceased. A case was 
registered against Ashok under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

(source: business-standard.com)

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

Justice Kurian Joseph calls for rethink on death penalty



Justice Kurian Joseph retired from the Supreme Court on 29th November, 2018, 
after a distinguished tenure of almost 6 years, being elevated to the Supreme 
Court in March, 2013. On 28th November, 2018, he was part of a three judge 
bench in deciding a criminal appeal, where the bench unanimously commuted the 
death sentence awarded to the convict to life sentence, but moving beyond 
commutation, Justice Joseph chose to delve into the vexed question of death 
penalty, and whether it was time for a rethink on the validity of capital 
punishment.

The Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty way 
back in 1981 in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab [(1980) 2SCC 684], wherein it 
laid down the test of ‘rarest of rare’, ie, death penalty should be awarded 
only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, when the alternative is unquestionably 
foreclosed.

Justice Joseph pointed out that different benches of the Supreme Court had 
lamented in various judgments the lack of uniform application of the principles 
in Bachan Singh. The principles, though, should be followed till they are 
overhauled. He also highlighted the difference in the 2 reports by the Law 
Commission in the year 1967 and in the year 2015, which it had written on the 
special request of the Court. The former had asked for the retention of the 
penalty but the latter after extensive research came to the conclusion that the 
death penalty was ineffective to deter offences.

Justice Joseph further noted that “having regard to the said report of the Law 
Commission, the constitutional regulation of capital punishment attempted in 
Bachan Singh has failed to prevent death sentences from being ‘arbitrarily and 
freakishly imposed’ and that capital punishment has failed to achieve any 
constitutionally and penological goals, we are of the view that a time has come 
where we review the need for death penalty as a punishment, especially in 
purpose and practice.” [Channu Lal Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal 
Appeal No 1482-83 of 2018, date of judgment: 28.11.2018]

Historically, one of the main arguments in favour of retention of death penalty 
is that it deters future crimes, especially murders and accordingly, death 
penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment. However, 
there is no conclusive proof to establish this claim, which has engaged the 
minds of scholars, social scientists and penologists for over a century now. In 
fact, recent studies show that research till date is not conclusive whether 
capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates, 
and these research findings should not influence policy deliberations.

It is argued that owing to the lengthy appeal process and rarity of executions, 
as compared to the number of people sentenced to death sentence, the deterrent 
value of capital punishment is hardly different from long-term imprisonment. 
This position was brought out by a recent survey of the top criminologists of 
the world, majority of whom agreed that death penalty does not add any 
significant deterrent over long-term imprisonment.

Another of the main arguments in favour of capital sentence is that it serves 
as ‘just deserts’ for the criminal, ie, the criminal deserves the death 
sentence that he/she has inflicted on the victim by committing homicide. 
Retribution, as one of the penological theories, has appealed to jurists and 
legal scholars for long and is based on the doctrine of lex talionis, which 
asserts that a person deserves to experience the suffering he/she has caused. 
However, scholars argue that lex talionis is not a correct doctrine, since no 
legal system would allow the rape of a rapist, assaulting an assaulter, amongst 
others. Still, death penalty is an exception, wherein it is considered to be 
justifiable by some that a person who has murdered another person ought to be 
given death penalty, as part of ‘just punishment’.

It is argued that retribution, as a legitimate goal of sentencing policy, has 
no role in a constitutional democracy like India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 
Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr vs Union of India (UOI) and Others (2014 (3) SCC 1) 
has observed that “retribution has no constitutional value in our largest 
democratic country. In India, even an accused has a de facto protection under 
the Constitution and it is the Court’s duty to shield and protect the same.” 
The desire for retribution often hides the primitive notion of private revenge 
to be extracted on behalf on behalf of the victim, which is incompatible with 
modern penology that places premium on reformation and corrective approach.

As many abolitionists argue, the main contention against retention of capital 
punishment is that it deprives people of the opportunity to reform, since by 
executing convicts, it deems certain people so evil that they are incapable of 
reforming themselves. The argument that certain hardened offenders are beyond 
reform is a fallacy because there is no way of accurately predicting that a 
particular offender can never be reformed.

Justice Bhagwati in his dissenting opinion in Bachan Singh had noted that “the 
hope of reforming even the worst killer is based on experience as well as faith 
and to legitimize the death penalty even in the so called exceptional cases 
where a killer is said to be beyond reformation, would be to destroy this hope 
by sacrificing it at the altar of superstition and irrationality.” In fact, if 
reformation is one of the objectives of criminal justice system, then capital 
punishment goes against that very objective by extinguishing life and putting 
an end to any possibility of reformation.

It is hoped that Justice Kurian’s words would reignite a debate on the death 
penalty in India, and we move towards a humane and compassionate society and 
legal regime.

(source: Amritananda Chakravorty is a freelance 
journalist----freepressjournal.in)








SINGAPORE:

2 men convicted of drug trafficking escape death row after acquittal by apex 
court



2 men convicted of drug trafficking have escaped the gallows, after the Court 
of Appeal found them not guilty and acquitted them in a split 2-1 decision.

Mohamed Affandi Rosli and Mohamad Fadzli Ahmad had appealed against their 
convictions in the High Court — Affandi for trafficking 132.82g of diamorphine, 
also known as heroin, and Fadzli for abetting by instigating the trafficking.

Both were given the mandatory death penalty for the offences.

In a written judgment issued on Wednesday (Dec 5), Chief Justice Sundaresh 
Menon and Senior Judge Chao Hick Tin granted both appeals.

They found that the prosecution had failed to establish, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, the chain of custody of the drug exhibits from the time they were seized 
to the time the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) analysed them, such that the 
drug exhibits seized were the substances eventually analysed.

However, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang disagreed, saying there was no break in 
the chain of custody, and that Fadzli had abetted Affandi.

After their trial in the High Court, Affandi and Fadzli were also convicted of 
other drug-related charges that did not carry the death penalty, but the 
prosecution at the time sought a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for 
them, in light of their capital punishment.

With the latest development, the apex court will hear at a later date any 
further orders that may be sought by the prosecution and lawyers in connection 
with that.

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

On July 12, 2013, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) inspected 
Affandi’s car and found 8 bundles of drugs containing 132.82g of diamorphine, 
as well as 4 packets of drugs containing methamphetamine. Affandi was a fire 
safety supervisor working at Marina Bay Sands then.

Fadzli, a part-time mover, was arrested on the same day. CNB officers found 4 
packets of drugs containing methamphetamine in his car, and he later 
surrendered 2 packets of nimetazepam tablets when officers searched his flat.

Affandi said that the diamorphine belonged to Fadzli, and that he was only in 
possession of the bundles until Fadzli was ready to collect them.

Fadzli denied knowledge of the diamorphine, claiming that he had met Affandi 
that afternoon to collect groceries from him to donate to an orphanage.

During the High Court trial, Affandi’s main defence was that there were serious 
questions surrounding the chain of custody of the drugs.

However, the High Court judge rejected this argument, saying it was not enough 
for the defence to suggest that there was a real break in the chain of custody 
without indicating when and how it might have happened.

The judge also found that Fadzli was seeking to distance himself from Affandi, 
and would have no reason to do so if he had nothing to hide.

THE APPEAL

Delivering the majority decision, Chief Justice Menon noted that “two 
inconsistent narratives” emerged during the trial as to how the drugs were 
handled by the arresting officers.

Accounts by two CNB officers showed that there were inconsistencies as to where 
the drug exhibits were or who held them at several points — such as during the 
time the arresting officers were searching Affandi’s flat, and after they 
returned to the CNB’s headquarters.

The prosecution is first required to account for the movement of the exhibits 
from when they were seized to the point of analysis by the HSA, the Chief 
Justice noted.

It would then be for the defence to raise reasonable doubt that there was a 
break in the chain of custody.

However, neither of the "2 complete and mutually exclusive” chains of custody 
that emerged were disproved.

“We respectfully disagree with the (High Court) judge’s conclusion that the 
defence had to show ‘that the exhibits have left the custody of the officers, 
or that unauthorised parties had access to them at some time during that 
period, or that the exhibits have been interfered with’. Instead, the onus is 
first and foremost on the prosecution to prove the chain of custody beyond 
reasonable doubt,” the majority judges said in the written judgment.

Neither Affandi’s nor Fadzli’s DNA was found on the bundles of diamorphine as 
well, they added.

Judge of Appeal Tay, in delivering the minority decision, found that the 2 
inconsistent narratives did not suggest there was a break in the chain of 
custody.

He noted that the drug exhibits were always in a trash bag and in the custody 
of the CNB officers, and there was no evidence they had been mixed up with 
other exhibits.

Along with the other 2 appeal judges, he also rejected the defence’s argument 
that the drug exhibits could have been tampered with or contaminated.

The defence had argued that after the investigating officer took possession of 
the exhibits, she left them on the floor of her office, unsealed and unsigned, 
for almost 34 hours instead of locking them in a safe or steel cabinet.

However, the argument was “premised on a mere theoretical possibility”, Mr Tay 
said.

Chief Justice Menon and Senior Judge Chao also said that the defence’s argument 
was speculative as the investigating officer’s office was locked and even 
though the keys to her office were centrally available, the officer’s personal 
authorisation was required before anyone else could enter it. During the period 
in question, no one had requested such access, and there was nothing to suggest 
that the protocol had been compromised.

(source: todayonline.com)








CHINA:

Trump gleefully encourages China to execute drug dealers----This totally 
ignores human rights, and the fact that executing dealers does not stop drug 
cartels.



Citing the number of people dying from fentanyl overdoses, President Donald 
Trump on Wednesday gleefully tweeted his support for China to start executing 
drug dealers.

“One of the very exciting things to come out of my meeting with President Xi of 
China is his promise to me to criminalize the sale of deadly Fentanyl coming 
into the United States,” he tweeted. “If China cracks down on this ‘horror 
drug,’ using the Death Penalty for distributors and pushers, the results will 
be incredible!”

It’s worth noting that the United States does not use the death penalty for 
drug traffickers, and that the policy of funding the “war on drugs” in 
countries that do execute traffickers and dealers is as ineffective as it is 
inhumane.

China has executed drug offenders, although fentanyl — a synthetic opioid — was 
not on the country’s list of controlled substances until now. China already 
leads the world in the number of executions, but it’s tough to know how many 
are killed on drug offenses.

Iran, which is also one of the world’s leading executioners, tends to publicize 
drug-related executions via state media. An estimated 205 of the roughly 507 
put to death in Iran in 2017 (according to numbers gathered by Amnesty 
International) were killed on drug charges, but after pressure from European 
partners funding its anti-trafficking measures, Iran early this year passed a 
law easing the parameters for offenses that result in capital punishment. There 
had been movement among Iran’s lawmakers to change the law for some time, as 
officials realized that killing people was not solving anything.

There are no reliable numbers for how many people China has executed — nor how 
many it has put to death for drug offenses — but according to Amnesty 
International, “thousands of executions … were believed to have been carried 
out in China” in 2017.

Despite that, its own state media reports that parts of the country are 
“plagued with rampant drug production and trafficking."

With his tweet, President Trump, who has also mused that executing drug 
traffickers in the United States might be a good idea, is also promoting 
executions in a justice system that seldom grants appeals or opportunities for 
reform.

For instance, in the province of Guangdong in June 2017, 18 people were 
publicly sentenced to death, with eight of those people being executed 
immediately after sentencing. Chilling footage of another such sentencing in 
December of the same year — which included drug traffickers — was described 
thusly by the BBC:

[Footage] shows convicts being surrounded by armed guards and led onto raised 
platforms to individually receive their sentences … After they have been 
sentenced, they are then led onto another platform on the back of a police car 
surrounded by armed guards and are driven away. For some of them, the journey 
is directly to the firing range.

Aside from promoting practices that are in violation of human rights, President 
Trump is also neglecting the fact that these measures simply do not work.

For one thing, the dealers and mules — those who are paid to carry the drugs 
across borders — are the lowliest members of any drug cartel.

They are often poor, desperate and incredibly disposable. Sending them to the 
gallows is not going to slow the roll of any kingpin, nor will it actually 
solve the root problems of addiction.

(source: thinkprogress.org)