[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

June 25



GLOBAL:

How to Understand the Death Penalty and Development of Doctrine



Recent developments in Rome on the subject of capital punishment have led to 
many anguished discussions on whether a change authorized by Pope Francis in 
the moral stance of the Church on the death penalty is a development of Church 
teaching which binds people in conscience to obedience.

On Aug. 8, 2018, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, the head of the Congregation for the 
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), stated that Pope Francis had approved a change in 
No. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Recourse to the death 
penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long 
considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an 
acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, 
however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not 
lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new 
understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the 
state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which 
ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not 
definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, 
the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is 
inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the 
person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.’”

Cardinal Ladaria maintained that since the Church has always upheld the right 
of the state to punish with the death penalty, this was a development of 
doctrine. Was he right?

It must be stated at the outset that whether something is a development of 
doctrine is a theological opinion not revealed truth. Before any judgment can 
be made about whether a specific teaching is a true development of doctrine, it 
would be good to clarify what the term “development” or “evolution” of dogma 
means according to the mind of the Church.

True Growth

The Catechism of the Catholic Church topically treats the idea of doctrinal 
development as part of the growth of the Catholic Church in its understanding 
of the faith. After proclaiming that faith is a response to the supernatural 
knowledge communicated to the Church through Revelation, the Catechism rightly 
states that the 2 sources of this revelation are the word of God as spoken 
(Tradition) and the word of God as written (Scripture). The agency that Christ 
himself chose to interpret and faithfully hand on Revelation is the magisterium 
of the pope and the bishops.

The Catechism then states:

“in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture 
and the magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of 
them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, 
under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the 
salvation of souls” (94-95).

Traditional Development

The clearest Patristic source for the idea of development of doctrine is 
Vincent of Lerins. In his Instructions (Chapter 23: PL 50, 667-668), Vincent 
explains that there is a “development in religion.” Development, Vincent says, 
means “that each thing expands to be itself while alteration means that a thing 
is changed from one thing into another.” Though the Church understands and 
applies the teaching of Christ, Vincent says, never are such applications an 
alteration but an expansion “only along its own line of development, that is, 
with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.” Souls develop in 
the same way as bodies, which may grow but “remain what they were.”

He clearly states: “The doctrine of the Christian religion should properly 
follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, 
more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.”

This sort of growth in the Church is known as homogeneous and not heterogeneous 
development. A future understanding of the faith cannot contradict but only 
expand on a former one. If this teaching expands our understanding, it is 
homogenous; if it contradicts it, it is heterogeneous.

Revelations

Catholicism has never supported the idea of progressive revelation, which can 
change from age to age or country to country and is culturally conditioned. 
Christ is the prime revealer and prime revelation, and the Church’s magisterium 
is his servant — not culture’s servant. While the pope (or any of the faithful) 
may have insights into the teachings of the Church, the formal revelation that 
Christ came to make on earth concluded with the death of the Twelve Apostles. 
Whatever progressive understanding of the faith may occur through the centuries 
in councils or papal teachings cannot add one iota to the faith of the apostles 
nor contradict it. There cannot be seven sacraments taught in one age or 
culture, 2 in another — and both teachings willed by Christ. As Vincent of 
Lerins concludes:

“It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants [of the ancients 
in the Church], were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth, but the intrusive 
growth of error.”

Moral Truths

If this is true of dogmatic truth, it is also true of moral truth. After 
Vatican II, there was a new, modernistic criterion established that was based 
on the denial of a common objective nature in man as the source for moral truth 
and the embracing of a new theory that moral teaching has changed according to 
the culture over the centuries.

Church and Culture

As for the idea that culture is a part of the method of teaching moral 
theology, one can admit this as a part of reason which examines human nature. 
Some of the norms of the natural law, for example, things which have to do with 
property rights in families, can be culturally conditioned. But to maintain 
this of every moral norm is certainly contrary to the traditional teaching on 
the natural law and to common sense. Why would the Holy Spirit reveal 
commandments to which every human choice is a possible exception? In the 
context of Catholic doctrine, to say culture is necessary to analyze moral 
norms, especially about things which are intrinsically evil, would fly in the 
face of the teaching of John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: “Consequently, 
respect for [moral] norms which prohibit such [intrinsically evil] acts and 
oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not 
inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression” 
(Veritatis Splendor, 82). Circumstances of a given age may broaden our 
understanding of moral truth, but they cannot make what was always an 
intrinsically good or evil moral act its opposite.

Status Quo?

So today, members of the CDF maintain that the change wrought in the Catechism 
concerning capital punishment is a genuine development of doctrine caused by a 
better grasp of the dignity of the human person in modern society. If the Pope 
and the CDF wish to pursue the abolition of the death penalty on circumstantial 
grounds, that is fine. However, one may legitimately disagree with them as to 
the prudential nature of this pursuit. Cardinal Ratzinger expressed this fact 
when he was head of the CDF in a letter to the U.S. bishops’ conference:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. 
For example, if a Catholic were at odds with the Holy Father on the application 
of capital punishment or on a decision to wage war, he would not for that 
reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. 
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war,” Cardinal 
Ratzinger continues, “and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing 
punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel 
an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a 
legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and 
applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and 
euthanasia” (Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, “Letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick 
and Bishop Wilton Gregory,” June 2004. Reprinted in L’Espresso, July 2004).

One must respect the right of Rome to seek to abolish the death penalty, but 
one may also disagree as to whether this is a homogenous development of 
doctrine or merely a debate about circumstantial application of that doctrine. 
If it is the latter, then to absolutize this new teaching and say that 
something which was a right and duty of the state (albeit one which must be 
used very prudentially) is an intrinsic evil would be a heterogeneous 
development.

(source: Commentary; Dominican Father Brian Mullady is a mission preacher and 
adjunct professor at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, 
Connecticut----ncregister.com)








SRI LANKA:

Halt plans for executions, once and for all



Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, must immediately halt his plans to 
resume executions for at least 13 prisoners convicted of drug-related crimes, 
Amnesty International said today.

Amnesty International is alarmed to learn from media reports that preparations 
are underway to execute death row prisoners as part of the so-called National 
Drug Eradication Week, from June 21 – July 1, 2019. The executions would be the 
first time Sri Lanka has implemented the death penalty since 1976.

“We are dismayed by these reports that will see Sri Lanka surrender its 
positive record on the death penalty. Executions will not rid Sri Lanka of 
drug-related crime. They represent the failure to build a humane society where 
the protection of life is valued. The last thing that Sri Lanka needs right now 
is more death in the name of vengeance,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia 
Director at Amnesty International.

While no official announcement has been made by the President’s Office, several 
sources have confirmed to Amnesty International that the newly-recruited 
executioners have been trained and that President Sirisena has every intention 
to resume hangings.

Executions for drug-related offences are unlawful. They do not meet the 
threshold for “most serious crimes” - i.e. intentional killing - to which the 
use of the death penalty must be restricted under international human rights 
law and standards.

The details of the scheduled executions, how many prisoners at risk of 
execution remain unknown and it is not clear what the circumstances of their 
convictions and sentencing are.

By keeping these plans secret, the Government of Sri Lanka is preventing the 
public and human rights activists from accessing vital information to ensure 
that critical safeguards put in place by the international community to protect 
the rights of those facing the death penalty are fully observed.

“The taking of a human life by the state is one of the gravest acts a 
government can commit. The severity of the punishment as a minimum requires 
complete transparency as a key safeguard of due process,” said Biraj Patnaik.

States have a duty to ensure all proceedings have complied with international 
standards for a fair trial, including respecting the right to appeal and apply 
for clemency, and ensuring that the prisoners, their families and legal 
representatives are given adequate notice of any plans to carry out the 
execution. It is not clear that this process has been followed in these cases.

Amnesty International absolutely opposes the death penalty in all 
circumstances. The human rights organization calls on the Sri Lankan government 
to halt its current execution plans and establish an official moratorium on the 
implementation of death sentences, with a view to abolishing the death penalty 
altogether.

Background

Amnesty International has repeatedly called on President Sirisena to halt his 
plans to resume executions, making clear that the death penalty does not have a 
unique deterrent effect on crime. The human rights organization absolutely 
opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, regardless of the crime 
committed or method of execution.

In the briefing, Sri Lanka: Halt Preparations to Resume Executions, Amnesty 
International highlights how the death penalty in Sri Lanka is being used in 
circumstances that violate international law and standards, has failed to act 
as a unique deterrent to crime in other countries, could claim the lives of 
people who may have been convicted through unfair trials, and could 
disproportionately affect people from minority and less advantaged 
socio-economic backgrounds.

Sri Lanka is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights, which sets the abolition of the death penalty as the goal to be 
achieved by countries that still retain this punishment. Instead of resuming 
executions, the Sri Lankan authorities must take measures to erase the death 
penalty from the country’s laws.

(source: Amnesty International)








MALAYSIA:

Ex-despatch clerk convicted of drug trafficking escapes death due to oversight



A former despatch clerk convicted of trafficking 43.4kg of cannabis escaped the 
gallows today on technical grounds following an appeal.

This is because the trial court in Kuala Lumpur 3 years ago failed to explain 
the 3 options available to the accused when Hafizzulah Abdul Samad was ordered 
to enter his defence.

Judge Zaleha Yusof, who chaired a 3-member Court of Appeal bench, said the 
appeal must be allowed as the mandatory requirement under Section 173 (ha) of 
the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied with.

“We agree with the counsel that conviction is not safe and the appeal must be 
allowed,” said Zaleha, who sat with Zabariah Yusof and Yew Jen Kie.

Earlier, counsel Ranjit Singh Sandhu argued that the trial court had failed to 
explain to Hafizzulah that he could give a sworn testimony from the witness 
stand, an unsworn statement from the dock, or exercise his right to remain 
silent.

“The notes of proceedings during the trial revealed that the 3 options which 
are mandatory requirements under the law were not read and explained to my 
client,” said Ranjit who was assisted by Shamser Singh Sidhu.

The lawyer said any attempt to exclude the 3 options would also be a 
fundamental denial of a fair trial guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

“The penalty for trafficking is a death sentence but the constitution states 
that life can only be taken away in accordance with law,” he said.

Deputy public prosecutor Asmah Musa however said the oversight was not fatal 
and that the conviction was based on facts.

Hafizzulah, 35, is said to have committed the offence at a parking lot near the 
Kuala Lumpur Education Department at Persiaran Duta on Feb 20, 2014.

The High Court found him guilty and sentenced him to death on March 25, 2016.

(source Free Malaysia Today)








PHILIPPINES:

Bong Go, ‘Bato’ poised to file bills seeking to restore death penalty



2 senators-elect agreed on Tuesday to file a bill seeking to restore the death 
penalty.

After attending a briefing/orientation for newly-elected senators by the Senate 
leadership at the Senate building for their legislative roles in the coming 
18th Congress. Senator-elect Christopher Lawrence ‘’Bong’’ Go told Senate 
reporters said he was considering filing a bill that will seek to amend 
Republic Act 9346 that bans the imposition of death penalty.

The bill that he would file, according to Go, would reimpose the death penalty 
only on selected heinous crimes such as illegal drugs and corruption.

Senator-elect Ronald dela Rosa, a former Philippine National Police (PNP) 
chief, said he would also file a bill seeking to restore the death penalty on 
illegal crimes involving drug trafficking.

‘’Tandem kami,’’ both lawmakers said.

The definition of drug trafficking under his proposal, according to Dela Rosa, 
would involve possession of a minimum of one kilo of “shabu (crystal meth), and 
would not include small-time street level drug distribution whose penalty would 
be dependent on current laws.”

In the coming 18th Congress, Dela Rosa will take over the chairmanship of the 
Senate public order and dangerous drugs committee which Senator Panfilo M. 
Lacson willingly relinquished to a fellow Philippine Military Academy (PMA) 
graduate.

Asked if he would inhibit himself as committee chairman during committee 
hearings, particularly on issues related to illegal drugs, Dela Rosa said he 
would not because he and the nation want to see and hear the truth.

The illegal drugs issue hounds President Duterte and the PNP leadership, 
particularly on the alleged extra-judicial killings (EJK).

Go, who identified himself as senator and adviser of the President, said that 
among his marching orders from the President was “to do what is right and to 
protect the Filipino people.’’

Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III had favored the imposition of death 
penalty on high-level illegal drugs operations.

Boxing icon Senator Emmanuel D. Pacquiao has been pushing for congressional 
approval of his bill seeking the restoration of death penalty on heinous 
crimes.

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

De Lima presses for tougher stance against reimposition of death penalty



Opposition Senator Leila de Lima has reiterated her call for a tougher stance 
against moves to revive the death penalty for heinous crimes in the country.

De Lima made the call as she took note of the impending domination of lawmakers 
close to the Duterte administration in the coming 18th Congress.

“In these times where great powers are concentrated on a single human being who 
with mere words – God forbid – can masterfully orchestrate a holocaust, we 
should be ever vigilant, ever firm with our stand against its re-imposition,” 
de Lima said.

“I believe that what deters and resolves crimes is a well-oiled and thoroughly 
functioning criminal justice system, one that ensures swift and ascertain 
accountability for the crimes committed and the imposition of commensurate 
penalties to the offenders,” she added.

The detained senator’s message was read by Marita Wasan of the Sangguniang 
Laiko ng Pilipinas at the 13th anniversary of the signing of the abolition of 
death penalty in the Philippines.

The event was organized by the Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care and 
the Coalition against Death Penalty at the Catholic Bishops Conference of the 
Philippines (CBCP) Chapel, in Intramuros, Manila last June 20.

De Lima, who chairs the Senate Committee on Social Justice, Welfare and Rural 
Development, said she believed that the true and lasting solution in fighting 
the worsening problem of criminality under the Duterte government lies in 
legislation upholding restorative justice and pushing for prosecution and 
judicial reforms.

She said that only the poor and powerless will greatly suffer the dire 
repercussion of reviving death penalty because they have no access to costly 
legal services.

“In a country where the poor outnumber the wealthy by a mile, socio-economic 
realities have skewed the implementation of the law on death penalty against 
the former,” the senator lamented.

“We have yet to see a person who has money or power truly suffer for their 
crimes. Former President Estrada was pardoned soon after being convicted of 
plunder. Former First Lady and Congresswoman Imelda Marcos continues to be out 
on paltry bail even after being convicted of multiple counts of graft,” she 
recounted.

A former justice secretary during the Aquino administration, de Lima stressed 
that despite seven death penalty executions under the Estrada administration 
from 1998 to 1999, the crime rate further increased by 15.3 %.

De Lima also recalled that the Supreme Court (SC), itself, has admitted that 
the Philippines’ trial courts have committed a judicial error rate of 71.77 
percent when death penalty was still imposed.

“With that level of reversal rate, imagine how many people will have been 
wrongly executed,” the senator pointed out.

“Even with judicial reforms, there is no way that we will reach a level of 
reliability to justify the re-imposition of capital punishment,” she said.

(source for both: Manila Bulletin)








AUSTRALIA:

What Next for Australian ISIS Suspects?----Government Should Pursue Full 
Investigations, Fair Trials



The Australian government is taking an important step by helping eight 
Australian children of suspects of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) 
return home from northeast Syria. The children were held for months without 
charge under horrific conditions in Syria’s al-Hol Camp. The youngest is two 
years old.

To ensure their release, the government sent diplomats into northeast Syria. 
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that, “children should not be punished for 
the crimes of their parents.” He’s right, and it’s time other governments put 
forward similar efforts to ensure protection for these children.

But questions remain about what to do with Australian adults in northeast Syria 
suspected of ISIS crimes. Some countries have reportedly been negotiating the 
transfer of their nationals to Iraq for prosecution, but Australia should 
resist this option. At least 11 French nationals have been transferred to Iraq 
and sentenced to death.

Human Rights Watch has monitored Iraqi trials of ISIS suspects and has serious 
concerns about due process, allegations of torture, use of the death penalty, 
and access to justice. Some trials of ISIS suspects in Baghdad have lasted just 
five minutes, often relying on coerced confessions, with no effective legal 
representation.

In November 2018, an Iraqi court convicted an Australian citizen, Ahmed Merhi, 
of ISIS membership and sentenced him to death. According to media reports, he 
told the court his confession was coerced and he was tortured by Iraqi 
officials, but the judge said a medical examination found no physical torture 
marks on his body. Human Rights Watch has documented Iraqi interrogators using 
a range of torture techniques, including beating suspects on the soles of their 
feet (falaka) and waterboarding, that would not leave lasting marks on the 
body. 2 French citizens also tried in Iraq for affiliation with ISIS said they 
were tortured or coerced to confess.

The Australian government has strongly advocated for abolition of the death 
penalty, a position that should be applied in all cases, including terrorism 
offenses. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances 
because of its inherent cruelty.

Australia should not outsource management of its terrorism suspects to abusive 
justice systems, especially when the end result could be death. The government 
should fully investigate and fairly prosecute these individuals at home in 
trials that meet international standards. And it should also solicit victims’ 
participation in trials, which Iraq has not done, even as witnesses.

(source: Human Rights Watch)








NIGERIA:

Kidnappers Will Face Death Penalty At Home As Drug Peddlers Abroad



How could a country go from the highest oil income earner in Africa to 
mushrooming the greatest number of poor people in the world; creating hardcore 
kidnappers extorting ransoms beyond states? This is beyond the obvious 
laboratory experiment where as the number of mice in pen multiply, they 
intensified aggression without enough space, food or water. Extrapolating to 
man, we see some of the people’s (mice) aggression spreading beyond their 
enclaves (pen).

Look, Nigerians have been known for soft crimes like 419 outside the country 
for some time by British and American Police profiles; but not hard crimes. 
When a Nigerian was pointed out as a suicide underwear bomber, we were 
surprised because we were not known for self-destructive crimes. Soft crimes 
has become ancient history. Even African neighbors are now typecasting 
Nigerians as infecting their countries with crimes that were un-African just a 
few years ago.

Then, we have some blacks that have no affiliation with Nigeria claiming to be 
Nigerians. If they know who to bribe, they can obtain Nigerian passports like 
Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. Mind you, we are not shifting responsibility here, 
we also have to let you know that we have enough criminals within us that 
pledge allegiance to other countries but soil the reputation of our country to 
achieve their operations as looters, pen and armed robbing desperados.

There is no country in the world without their own share of criminals, so has 
Nigeria and so has African countries. The difference here are that some 
miscreant dogs are roaming and spreading rabies into many states and countries 
in the name of Nigeria. Many of them have been flushed out of their cities and 
villages for acts of abomination. In desperation, plead for accommodation and 
tolerance in and outside their places, while they invade and violate local 
customs.

There are two types of these criminals at home that have lost their conscience. 
The first group are members of hard drug pushers, kidnappers and ritualists. 
Most of their money, families and properties are in foreign countries. In 
essence, they have renounced their allegiance, citizenship with foreign 
passports to nurture their way of live, deadly operation but educate their 
children at expensive schools. When visiting Nigeria, they spend ostentatiously 
as if they are legitimate.

The second types are pen robbers made up of politicians and members of 419 
clubs. It used to be what Nigerians were known for. They sponsor other leaders 
to get cuts from inflated foreign and big local contracts for their immediate 
families; creating poor masses. They stage elections terror since they lack 
local allegiance and care very little for the demise of Nigeria. Depending on 
their crimes outside, foreigners can pinpoint their localities in Nigeria 
before they confess.

However, when caught red handed during their operations, these disowned 
vagabonds soil the names of all Nigerians as if they were patriots. They left 
their country out of greed with enough money to start a business, seeking what 
they called greener pastures. Only to find out they are jumping from frypan to 
fire. No reasonable person would leave a country with his rights and privileges 
only to become undesirable and untouchable outside. When stuck without jobs or 
means, they take to crimes.

Moreover, some of them justify their crimes as payback for colonialism; which 
they see as courageous and valiant ways to make money overseas. It is not very 
often that you see Africans so audacious going outside their states or 
countries to commit heinous crimes on their accommodating hosts. Africans’ 
tolerance for one another has been so squeezed and exploited that the homes 
that were supposed to nurture and point them to cultural pride and morals are 
proposing death penalty as a deterrent.

Though these criminals bring shame and embarrassment to most law-abiding people 
in their communities, both criminal groups stage their devilish acts in certain 
cities against their hosts claiming to be victims of jealousy when caught. The 
same way they are killing Nigeria, they set out to kill other countries, if 
allowed. Without achievement as a group to lift up explosive poverty at home, 
they arrogantly boast to other Africans of some natural gift to rule the world.

Therefore, like many countries that have declined requests to accept 
deportations of criminals, we denounce and disowned the criminals. It is unfair 
to those countries or Nigeria to call them Nigerians when the only relationship 
they have with the country is that of parasitic blemishes. If they commit 
heinous crimes in your country, deal with them to discourage those of them 
still looking for their way out. Do not send them back because Nigeria has 
enough to deal with.

Since the amount on income coming into these Africans countries by exploiting 
their resource are so meagre, there will never be enough to care for 
individuals. The notion of Africans or poor countries living on less than 
American $2.00 a day is a reflection of how much they earn after their money 
has been devaluated and their raw material bought for little or nothing. 
Poverty has been intentionally created with little earning to feed and care for 
increasing population.

We cannot wait until African countries get fair and equal trade to sell 
finished products in the world trading markets or trade within, as income 
earned fall short of caring for the poor. We must hastily add that we are not 
blaming immoral characters on outside influences or the mean spirited economic 
calculations that benefit most of their so-called shareholders colluding with 
Western educated crooks within that defraud and perpetrate Economic Injustice 
on the poor.

Nigeria is a case in point that made considerable money from the oil while the 
multinational companies paid a fraction in royalties and outright stealing 
without knowledge of how much was going out or coming in as income. Cocoa 
companies like Cadbury, Nestle, Hensley and beer beverage companies have sold 
finished products as exports for ages without contributing any earnings in 
foreign exchange to the country. Instead of adding foreign income, they 
depleted it.

Nevertheless, sceptics wonder if the death penalty will deter hardcore criminal 
gangs in the increasing face of hunger and poverty. During Bar Beech Show 
Firing Squad for armed robbers, some said they would rather die fast from 
gunshot volleys than die painfully of hunger.

(source: Farouk Martins Aresa, modernghana.com)