[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 7



IRELAND:

Irish Legal Heritage: The Manchester Martyrs



On 18 September 1867, Police Sergeant Charles Brett was shot dead while 
transporting prisoners, including 2 members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood 
(IRB), from Manchester police court to Bell Vue Gaol.

Thomas Kelly and Timothy Deasy had been arrested when police observed them 
“loitering about the streets in a suspicious manner” in the middle of the 
night, and presumed they were plotting a robbery. They were found to have 
loaded revolvers in their pockets, and were charged under the Vagrancy Act. 
However, communications with the Irish police led them to be identified as 
“notorious Fenians” who were key members of the IRB (M McDonnell Bodkin, Famous 
Irish Trials (1918)).

Sergeant Brett was killed when a group of between 30 and 40 men encircled the 
horse-drawn police van carrying the prisoners, and ordered Sergeant Brett to 
open the door. After he refused, one of the men fired his revolver into the 
lock to break it open – just as Sergeant Brett was looking through it to see 
what was happening outside. Sergeant Brett died instantly from a bullet wound 
to the brain, and his keys were used to release the prisoners.

Immediately afterwards, a reward of £300 was offered for the arrest of Kelly 
and Deasy, and a reward of £200 was offered for “information which would lead 
to the apprehension and conviction of the parties implicated in the rescue”.

Kelly and Deasy evaded capture, but the investigation led to the arrest of 26 
men. The first 5 men to be put on trial were William Philip Allen, Michael 
Larkin, Michael O’Brien, Edward O’Meagher Condon (otherwise known as Edward 
Shore), and Thomas Maguire (M McDonnell Bodkin, Famous Irish Trials (1918)). 
The jury found all 5 of the accused to be guilty of murder. The men were 
sentenced to death by hanging, to which they cried from the dock “God save 
Ireland!”.

Edward O’Meagher Condon and Thomas Maguire were ultimately saved from the death 
penalty. The Home Secretary recommended that Thomas Maguire should be pardoned 
after it was accepted that he was not present at the rescue and that the 
witness testimony, upon which he and the other accused were convicted, was 
false. The Crown also granted reprieve to Edward O’Meagher Condon, as “he was 
unarmed when apprehended and was not proved to be armed during the fatal 
affray”.

On 23 November 1867, William Allen, Michael O’Brien, and Michael Larkin were 
publicly executed in Manchester to a jeering crowd of thousands of people.

It was widely believed that none of the men had fired the fatal shot, and that 
a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Their cries of “God save Ireland” were 
ever memorialised in a song written by Timothy Daniel Sullivan that served as 
an unofficial Irish national anthem for years after their deaths:

“God save Ireland” said the heroes,

“God save Ireland” said they all.

Whether on the scaffold high,

Or the battlefield we die,

Oh, what matter when for Erin dear we fall!

(source: Irish Legal News)








JAPAN:

Father of killed son on crusade for abolition of death penalty



Once filled with hatred and anger toward a truck driver who killed his son, 
Tadaari Katayama now is an unlikely anti-death penalty advocate.

Katayama, 63, has jointly set up a citizens group seeking to end capital 
punishment after engaging in activities to support crime victims and 
interacting with inmates. He said he has come to believe that criminals can 
reform.

“I do not want the lives of anyone to be ended anymore,” said Katayama.

In November 1997, Katayama's 8-year-old son Shun, a 2nd-grade elementary school 
student, was hit by a dump truck while on his way to school and killed.

Questioning why the perpetrator was not prosecuted, Katayama sought 
eyewitnesses to the accident and waged a petition campaign calling for the case 
to be reopened.

The public efforts forced prosecutors to admit their failing and indict the 
driver, who was eventually convicted of professional negligence resulting in 
death.

The case also provided a good opportunity to review the way crime victims are 
treated.

At that time, Katayama felt not only hatred and sadness but also fear toward 
the perpetrator. As the motorist did not visit him to apologize and just sent 
perfunctory letters, Katayama thought the driver “may be a monster-like 
individual.”

But when meeting with the perpetrator on the recommendation of the lawyer, 
Katayama was surprised that the small, pale-faced man was just a young father 
at a loss over what to do about the accident.

Although they could not find common ground, Katayama felt at ease to learn that 
the driver is “a normal person.”

Katayama in 2000 started speaking of “the viewpoint of victims” at prisons and 
juvenile training schools at the request of the Justice Ministry. He has since 
had a dialogue with convicts eight times a month.

Inmates who had killed others sometimes expressed their apologies to the 
victimized individuals while sobbing. Katayama became interested in the death 
penalty after exchanging letters with a death-row inmate and deepening his 
understanding of the law.

Whereas many crime victims are in favor of the ultimate punishment, Katayama 
had his doubts about such an approach. That is because an execution makes it 
impossible for convicts to reform and deprives an opportunity for victims to 
emotionally heal through interactions with the inmates.

On top of that, Katayama could never support capital punishment, which “ends 
someone’s life.”

Katayama initially hesitated to publicly voice his opposition against the 
traditional form of punishment. However, he changed his mind as penalties were 
strengthened against criminals, the public continued to support capital 
punishment and 13 former senior members of the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult were 
hanged in July last year.

In January this year, through a friend, Katayama met with former Justice 
Minister Hideo Hiraoka, who was then considering reaching out to a wide range 
of people doubting or questioning capital punishment via a citizens’ campaign 
to discuss the issue from various perspectives.

As he agreed with Hiraoka’s plan, Katayama served as one of eight co-organizers 
when the Citizens’ Committee to Abolish Capital Punishment was set up in June.

“I would like you to think of what the death penalty claims and how grave it 
is,” Katayama told the audience at an event to celebrate the establishment of 
the committee on Aug. 31 in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward.

(source: The Asahi Shimbun)








INDONESIA:

Man arrested for possession of RM9k worth of drugs in apartment carpark



A 33-year-old male suspect was arrested by the police for allegedly trafficking 
drugs when 60 grammes of methamphetamine, or syabu, was found in his possession 
at the carpark of an apartment building in Jalan Stampin Timur at around 4pm 
yesterday.

Sarawak Narcotics Crime Investigation Department (NCID) head Supt Hasnir Abdul 
Hamid said in a statement that the drugs were kept inside a black plastic bag 
that was held by the suspect as he was approached by the police.

Inside the bag, police found 11 smaller packets of syabu, estimated to be worth 
around RM9,000.

“We made the move on the suspect based on intelligence which we have gathered 
on his drug related activities,” said Hasnir adding that the case has been 
classified under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which carries the 
mandatory death penalty.

The suspect from Jalan Nanas Barat, who tested positive for methamphetamine and 
amphetamine, will be further investigated under Section 15(1)(a) of the 
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

“A background check revealed that the suspect does not have a past criminal 
record,” said Hasnir.

The suspect is currently detained at the Kuching Sentral police station pending 
a remand application.

(source: The Borneo Post)








PHILIPPINES:

Reimposition of death penalty: A question of the country’s palabra de honor



THROUGH the many years of debating the abolition of the death penalty, then of 
its reimposition, then of its abolition once again, and then of its 
reimposition yet once more, the Filipino public should already be familiar with 
the pros and cons of the issue. Those who favor its imposition have argued that 
it serves the ends of justice as a means by which society avenges or punishes 
the acts of those who kill others. They contend that it is reserved for the 
most heinous offenses. The House of Representatives has passed a bill 
reimposing the death penalty for those guilty of capital drug offenses. Those 
who oppose it cite figures that prove that capital punishment does not 
effectively deter crimes. They also argue that it has been proven to have been 
meted on innocent persons, especially the poor with no capacity to hire 
competent counsel to defend them. The Church argues that no one has the right 
to take a life except God.

A less known argument concerns a commitment made by the country under an 
international treaty to abolish the death penalty forever. After then-President 
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed in June 2006 Republic Act (RA) 9046 abolishing 
the death penalty, the Philippines signed in the same year and ratified the 
following year the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights which irrevocably abolishes the death penalty. The 
Philippines subsequently assured the United Nations and the international 
community of its commitment to fulfill its obligations under the protocol that 
it signed and ratified on several occasions:

– In its 2008 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Report to the United Nations 
Human Rights Council, the Philippines stated the following: “In consonance with 
promotion of the right to life, the Philippine Government has condemned all 
forms of killings. In testimony of its firm commitment to the value and 
sanctity of human life and in the belief that the defense of life is 
strengthened by eliminating the exercise of judicial authorization to take 
life, the Philippines abolished the death penalty [and] ratified the Second 
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(ICCPR). To sustain this commitment, the Philippines co-sponsored and 
co-authored the resolution calling for a Moratorium on Executions, which was 
adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 2007.”

– In its 2011 State Report to the ICCPR Human Rights Committee, the Philippines 
stated the following:

“With the signing of the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippine Government 
reemphasized its unrelenting commitment to strengthen the protection of human 
rights by co-sponsoring and co-authoring the United Nations resolution on the 
Global Moratorium on Executions and/or Abolition of the Death Penalty during 
the 62nd and 63rd General Assembly.”

– The Philippines voted in favor of three General Assembly Resolutions on the 
moratorium on the use of the death penalty: 1) A/RES/62/149, adopted Dec. 18, 
2007; 2) A/RES/65/206, adopted Dec. 21, 2010; and 3) A/RES/69/186, adopted Dec. 
18, 2014.

No withdrawal clause

Unlike the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which has a withdrawal 
mechanism under its Art. 12 — “Any State Party may denounce the present 
protocol” — the Second Optional Protocol has no procedural clause for 
withdrawal. The Philippines is one of 116 states parties to the First Optional 
Protocol and already two of the ratifying states — Jamaica and Trinidad and 
Tobago — have denounced the protocol. According to the UN Human Rights 
Committee, a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted under the Second 
Optional Protocol because once the people are accorded the protection of their 
rights they shall not be deprived of such protection. Human rights advocates 
explain that “ratification of the Second Optional Protocol will prevent future 
governments from reinstating the death penalty. This is a significant step as 
changes in government may lead to the reintroduction of the death penalty.” As 
Denys Robiliard, lawyer and former president of the French branch of Amnesty 
International explains, “What one law does, another can undo and we know that 
at a time of crisis the death penalty can be reestablished. This is why we must 
convince parliamentarians in abolitionist countries of the necessity of making 
international commitments in this regard. Even if abolition exists in national 
law, only international commitments are irreversible.” Human rights experts 
further affirm that once a State ratifies the Second Protocol, “there is no 
going back, the death penalty is irrevocably abolished in that country 
regardless of changes in government and political situation.”

There were countries in the past that tried to withdraw from treaties with no 
exit provisions. The impossibility of withdrawing from such treaties is shown 
by the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that attempted 
to terminate its being a state party to the ICCPR. The UN Secretary General 
received from the government of the DPRK on Aug. 25, 1997 a notification dated 
Aug. 23,1997 of withdrawal from the ICCPR. In his reply on Sept. 23, 1997 to 
the government of the DPRK, the Secretary General explains the legal position 
arising from the ICCPR’s not containing a withdrawal provision. The UN 
Secretary-General is of the opinion that a withdrawal from the covenant would 
not appear possible unless all states parties to the covenant agree with the 
withdrawal.

In the case of the Philippines, the 1987 Constitution abolished the death 
penalty for all crimes. During the Fidel V. Ramos administration, RA 7659 was 
signed in December 1993 reimposing the death penalty to address the rising 
criminality. But it is to be noted that in 1993 the Philippines was not a party 
yet to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (the Philippines signed on 
Sept. 20, 2006 and ratified on Nov. 20, 2007). The House of Representatives has 
approved the reinstatement of the death penalty despite the fact that the 
Philippines has been and now is a state party to the Second Optional Protocol.

Consequences of reinstatement

With the reinstatement, the Philippines will be violating the Vienna Convention 
on the Law of Treaties. With this close-open Philippine attitude with regard to 
the death penalty, our palabra de honor, or word of honor, will suffer in the 
eyes of the international community, with the following practical consequences:

– We may lose our credibility as a member of the international community. The 
world may be reminded of one of Aesop’s fables, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” about 
a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks villagers into thinking a wolf is 
attacking his flock; when the wolf actually does appear and the boy again calls 
for help, the villagers think it is another false alarm and the sheep are eaten 
by the wolf.

– A rude alien from a foreign land may accuse the Philippines of ignoring the 
ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol and throw at us the familiar Latin legal 
maxim “ignorantia legis non escusai” (ignorance of the law excuses no one). 
That maxim is Article 3 of our Civil Code of the Philippines, “Ignorance of the 
law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

– Our Commission on Human Rights cites the worst consequence: “The 
reintroduction of the death penalty in any form in the Philippines will expose 
the Philippines to international ridicule and criticism as it breaches numerous 
rules of international law, including rules that it expressly and freely 
accepted in the free exercise of its sovereignty. Breach of international law 
by the Philippines in this context will undermine treaty commitments entered 
into by the Philippines. It will no longer be a respected member of the 
community of States.”

Hardliners softening

Based on current developments around the world, countries favoring the 
abolition of capital punishment are increasing and it appears that even the 
stand of hardliners on the issue is softening. In Africa, many human rights 
organizations observe that there is a trend in the continent of abolishing the 
death penalty in general, and in recent years many African countries have 
either abolished the death penalty or have put the use of it on moratorium. In 
Europe, many European countries abolished the death penalty a long time ago and 
abolition is a pre-condition for entry into the European Union (EU). The EU is 
the leading institutional actor and largest donor to the fight against the 
death penalty. In North and South America and in Oceania, most countries do not 
impose the death penalty; in the US, 21 out of 50 states plus the District of 
Columbia have abolished the death penalty and as of April 2019 the states of 
California, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Oregon have established official 
moratoriums on executions. In Asia, which is described as home to some of the 
world’s leading executioners, recent press reports say: The amended 2015 Penal 
Code of Vietnam will take effect at the start of 2018 and the death penalty on 
those found guilty of 5 felonies will no longer be imposed; in Iran, capital 
punishment has been abolished for some drug offenses and the head of the 
judiciary has said all cases on death row can be reviewed; Amnesty 
International (AI) reports that China remains the world’s top executioner, but 
the true extent of the use of the death penalty in China is unknown as this 
data is classified as a state secret. AI also reports that it recorded at least 
690 executions in 20 countries in 2018, down by 31 % from 2017.

With the above mentioned positive developments, the ultimate goal of the 
ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol of total abolition of the death penalty 
worldwide may prove to be not an impossible dream after all.

A good number of Filipino senators have expressed opposition to the 
reimposition of the death penalty on the ground that the country is a signatory 
to the Second Protocol. They should be well aware of this fact belonging as 
they do to the chamber of Congress that under the Constitution concurs in the 
ratification of every treaty. A newly elected senator, however, who was the 
face of the Duterte administration’s war on drugs, said in a television 
interview that he was for reimposing the death penalty because a convicted 
foreign drug lord confessed to him that drug syndicates like to operate in the 
Philippines because unlike other countries in Southeast Asia, it does not have 
the death penalty. Are we to take the word of a criminal, or uphold the word of 
honor of the country that it will abolish the death penalty once and for all?

(source: Op-Ed; Danilo Ibayan, Manila Times)








NIGERIA:

Sallah: Zamfara governor pardons145 inmates, including 5 on death row



The governor of Zamfara State, Bello Matawallen, on Friday, granted amnesty to 
150 inmates at the Gusau Maximum Security Prison.

The governor’s media aide, Yusuf Idris, in a statement to PREMIUM TIMES said Mr 
Matawalle made the “kind gesture” during a visit to the prison. He said it was 
to enable the prisoners to celebrate Sallah with their loved ones at home.

The beneficiaries include 5 condemned to death, 5 serving life sentences and 
nine nursing mothers.

Among them also are 30 serving various jail terms, 60 awaiting trials and 41 
who benefitted on special consideration, including for memorising the Holy 
Quran.

Prisoners with deformity, the aged and those who spent more than 20 years in 
jail were also freed, the statement added.

The statement further urged the freed inmates to consider the amnesty as a 
promise binding on them against doing anything that could lead them back to 
prison.

The governor said their trials and experiences should serve as a lesson to 
reform themselves and to henceforth be of good conduct.

“Governor Matawalle further advised them to reform and be people of good 
conduct in order to assist his administration in its efforts to restore total 
peace in the state.

“The governor also donated five cows,100 bags of rice, 5 rams, drugs and other 
food ingredients to the remaining inmates to celebrate the Eid-El-Kabir,” the 
statement added.

The statement quoted the Comptroller of Prisons in the state, Sani Potiskum, as 
remarking that the prison has a capacity for accommodating 1,664 inmates and 
that only 649 people are currently in the prison.

There are some inmates who have spent between 15 and 25 years without trial, 
the prison boss said.

Also at the event, representative of the State Chief Judge, Justice Mukhtar 
Yushau, said granting amnesty to the inmates is a prerogative which Governor 
Matawalle has exercised.

He called on the released inmates to make good use of the opportunity given to 
them by the governor by staying away from trouble.

(source: premiumtimesng.com)








CAMEROON:

Cameroon opposition leader faces death penalty in insurrection trial



Cameroon's main opposition leader, Maurice Kamto, has gone on trial in a 
military court in Yaoundé, along with 90 of his supporters. Kamto, who was the 
runner-up in last year’s presidential election, is accused of insurrection and 
rebellion, and could face the death penalty.

Kamto arrived in court on Friday under tight security. The trial venue was 
protected by 200 police officers in anti-riot gear, while others patrolled the 
area in pick-up trucks.

There had been calls from the opposition leader's followers for a protest rally 
outside the court.

Kamto, together with several dozen of his political allies and supporters, 
faces charges of insurrection, hostility to the motherland and rebellion, 
crimes which, in theory at least, could carry the death penalty.

The head of the opposition Movement for the Rebirth of Cameroon (MRC) was 
arrested in January after months of peaceful opposition protests denouncing the 
results of the October 2018 presidential election.

The MRC alleges that the election was rigged in favour of President Paul Biya, 
who has been in power for 36 years. Kamto claims that he himself won the 
election.

Cameroon's former colonial ruler France, the United States and the European 
Union have repeatedly called for his release.

"There is no justification for Mr Kamto and his supporters to have been 
incarcerated for eight months in these conditions," their French lawyer Antoine 
Vey told the French news agency, AFP.

"None of them took part in acts of violence, none called for acts of violence 
or rebellion, there is no reason for their arrest other than a political 
motive."

Ready for justice

The crackdown against the opposition has caused outrage among rights groups and 
many western governments.

In March, the US assistant secretary of state for African Affairs Tibor Nagy, 
told RFI that Cameroon would be "very wise" to release Kamto because his 
detention is widely perceived as politically motivated.

A top European Union official criticised the arrests and the military court's 
"disproportionate" proceedings against them.

France in May also demanded the release of Kamto and his supporters.

On Monday, just days ahead of their trial, Kamto and his fellow defendants said 
they were "ready to face justice so the truth would come out," demanding free 
public and press access to the courtroom.

“Mr Kamto is full of confidence,” his spokesman Olivier Bibou Nissack told 
journalists.

Conflict on all fronts

The authorities in Cameroon dismiss claims from the defendants and others that 
this a political trial designed to “decapitate” the opposition.

Along with the political protests, President Biya is facing a struggle on other 
fronts.

Since 2017, fighting between the army and English-speaking separatists 
demanding independence in 2 western regions has killed hundreds, forced nearly 
500,000 people from their homes and filled jails with anglophone activists 
accused of militancy.

In the north of the country, Boko Haram's nearly 10-year Islamist insurgency 
which is based in northeastern Nigeria, has more recently spilled over into 
Cameroon.

(source: RFI)