South Asian Governments Consider The Death Penalty As Punishment For Sexual Violence

Source: The Organization for World Peace (8 January 2021)

https://theowp.org/reports/south-asian-governments-consider-the-death-penalty-as-punishment-for-sexual-violence/

In a video released on December 17th, 2020, Human Rights Watch stated that South Asian governments should accept the advice of their experts and ignore “populist death penalty rhetoric” in order to stop sexual violence against women. There have been several high-profile sexual violence cases in South Asia, provoking comments from experts on sexual violence from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka about the protests across the region. The movement is a protest against regional governments’ continued failure to adequately address sexual violence or to provide for the safety and wellbeing of survivors.

Meenakshi Ganguly, the South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, addressed the increasing protest movement, stating that women and girls “have long watched their governments tolerate – or even facilitate – impunity for sexual violence and they are taking to the streets and demanding change now.”

The protests, which were led by women’s rights activists, were in response to numerous sexual violence cases across South Asia in 2020. In Pakistan, a woman was criticized by the police chief for not choosing a safer route after she was gang raped in front of her children when her car ran out of fuel. In India, the police and the government refused to acknowledge that a 19-year-old Dalit woman was gang raped even though she told them she was before she died. This was supposedly to protect the perpetrator, who allegedly belonged to a dominant caste. The Bangladeshi government also failed to remove a video of several men attacking and sexually assaulting a woman before it went viral on the internet.

The protesters expressed their outrage at government inaction, and called for legal reforms and better prioritization of women’s rights. Several South Asian governments have been criticized for choosing to use the death penalty for perpetrators of sexual violence rather than tackling the issue through comprehensive sexual education, gender-sensitive police training and mental and physical health and wellbeing services for survivors. Opting to enforce the death penalty is seen as a way out of addressing underlying societal issues that have allowed sexual violence to become endemic across the region.

While many of the protesters and experts are calling for legal reform, Farieha Aziz, the co-founder of the organization Bolo Bhi in Pakistan, stated, “We do have laws and certain procedures. What is necessary is that they are implemented.” In countries where the appropriate laws exist, the failings lie in enforcement, making it very difficult for survivors to receive justice.

Activists, experts and survivors across South Asia have criticized the legal systems for putting obstacles in front of survivors which may deter them from pursuing justice. In Bangladesh, it is estimated that less than one percent of investigated rape cases result in a conviction. This is a stark statistic that could make survivors feel that the likelihood of their cases being thoroughly investigated in order to achieve justice is exceptionally low. The legal process can be very traumatic on its own, and survivors might be less likely to come forward to name the perpetrator due to the historical lack of convictions.

Dr. Lhamo Yangchen Sherpa, a medical expert in Nepal, stated that “It’s not only that the police register the case. You then have to go to the court, which might take years and years… [The accused] have good lawyers, which means that the case either gets dissolved or the case goes on for a very long time.” This can often result in things being settled outside court, or survivors choosing not to report the crime at all. Shabnam Salehi, the commissioner at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said, “The judges still consider [the] victim as a criminal, and they ask a lot of questions that is against the human dignities.” The process of reporting a crime and facing the accused in court carries the risk of re-traumatizing the survivor, particularly if the legal process is lengthy and biased.

The Bangladesh government has decided to approve the use of capital punishment in rape cases after the increase in protests over the past year. Introducing the death penalty is an easy option and does not address or respond to the protestors’ anger. There is a lack of evidence as to whether the death penalty reduces sexual violence; however, it has been suggested by experts that it could result in survivors choosing not to report a crime or accused rapists killing their victims to decrease the chances of their arrest.

As well as reforming the legal system and ensuring its proper enforcement, sexual education is an incredibly important aspect of a child’s upbringing. Sexual education informs young people about their bodies, consent, and reproductive rights, which gives them the tools to understand right and wrong. It also teaches them how to have healthy relationships and to understand the power structures within them. Rape culture is perpetuated because microaggressions such as cat-calling and misogynistic jokes are tolerated. The education system in South Asian countries should be restructured to challenge existing gender norms and reinforce the concept of consent.

In early 2020, the High Court in Bangladesh ordered the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to create a commission in 30 days to respond to the increase in sexual violence. Nine months later, the commission still had not been set up. A witness protection law that was drafted by the Law Commission approximately 15 years ago has also not been passed by the government. Furthermore, sexual harassment legislation that women’s groups helped to draft a few years ago has yet to progress.

The Rape Law Reform Coalition, comprised of 17 women’s rights groups, is directly opposed to the use of capital punishment in rape cases. The Coalition drafted a list for the Bangladeshi government to begin implementing. It included changing the definition of rape to include all victims despite their marital status or gender identity, banning the use of character evidence in rape trials, implementing sexual and gender-based violence training for police and court officials as well as including sexual education in school curriculum.

It is clear that Bangladesh, and other countries in South Asia, must listen to their experts and women in order to make meaningful changes. By using expert knowledge and listening to the personal experiences of survivors, governments can gather information on which parts of the legal and education systems need to be changed and how to implement those changes effectively.

Down with the death penalty

Source: The Kathmandu Post (4 May 2018)

http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2018-05-04/down-with-the-death-penalty.html

On April 21, 2018, India’s cabinet passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018. One of the main amendments proposed in the ordinance was the insertion of a new provision, Section 376AB, in the Indian Penal Code which prescribes a death penalty to offenders convicted of raping a minor under the age of 12. Many have welcomed the government’s decision to exercise stringent punishment. This decision was primarily in response to widespread public outrage against the increasing incidents of rape, among others.

In Nepal too, in the wake of an increase in the reported incidents of rape, members of the public, activists and law makers have been putting forth similar demands to enact laws that allow for capital punishment against perpetrators of rape. Recently, in a State Assembly meeting of Province 3 that was held in Hetauda, members of the assembly demanded that death sentences be levelled against those guilty of rape. This is a clear indication of the public support for capital punishment when it comes to heinous crimes such as rape. According to popular opinion, if perpetrators are given a death sentence, then justice will be served and the occurrence of heinous crimes will decrease.

A pertinent question here is whether or not prescribing a death penalty to the perpetrators of such heinous crimes acts as deterrence, thus resulting in crime reduction. Is death penalty really the solution to combat such crimes?

The practice of capital punishment is guided by the retributive principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” An analysis by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights concluded that “capital punishment does not deter crime to a greater extent in comparison to the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” As Amnesty International puts it, “the death penalty violates the most fundamental human right—the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment carried out in the name of justice.” It has to be understood that the death penalty, irrespective of the nature of the crime, characteristics of the offender, or the method used to prosecute, is a cruel and inhumane act.

Where do we stand?

In Nepal, following legal reforms in 1946, the death penalty was partially abolished for ordinary crimes. It was reinstated in 1985 for the offences of homicide and terrorism. The death penalty was completely abolished in Nepal only after the constitutional provision of 1990. In South Asia, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka have abolished capital punishment; while, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Maldives have continued the practice.

The prevailing Constitution of Nepal (2015) under article 16 has guaranteed that all citizens have the right to live with dignity and has also prohibited any law to be made that prescribes the death penalty. This is a fundamental right. As per article 1 of the constitution, the constitution is the fundamental law and any law that is inconsistent with the constitution shall be void. It, therefore, is explicit that no law can be made in Nepal that prescribes the death penalty. Even if such a law is made, it shall be void on grounds of inconsistency with the constitutional provision. Apart from these, Nepal is a signatory to Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which mandates abolition of the death penalty.

The newly enacted Penal Offence (Punishment Determination and Implementation) Act, 2074 which is due to be implemented from August 17, 2018 has incorporated various new penal provisions such as community service, suspended sentence, reform homes, rehabilitation centres, open prisons, parole, probation, etc. Section 13 of the act has clearly prescribed that the purpose of punishment should be to deter the offender, rehabilitate the offender, create a sense of remorse in the offender, etc. This clearly suggests that the penal policy adopted by the criminal justice system of Nepal is of a reformative approach.

Apart from this, in a bid to introduce stringent laws, the new National Penal (Code) Act, 2074 has introduced a new provision regarding life time imprisonment. As per the prevailing Muluki Ain, 2020, lifetime imprisonment would entail 20 years in prison. But the new law has prescribed two kinds of life time imprisonment: imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s life in cases of heinous crimes, and imprisonment for a period of 25 years.

Way forward

As per a report by Amnesty International, 105 countries around the world had abolished the death penalty for all crimes as of September 2017. With many countries adopting an abolitionist approach to the death penalty, it is time to re-examine our stance. Nepal was among the earliest countries in South Asia to abolish the death penalty, which is remarkable. The prevailing constitution has explicitly prohibited making laws that prescribe the death penalty. The new laws on sentencing policy are guided by a reformative approach. In this purview, it is futile to put forth demands to reintroduce the death penalty for heinous crimes. It would be a regressive step for the criminal justice system of Nepal.

It has to be understood that the death penalty is never the answer. Seeking justice through revenge can never serve as justice in the realest sense. Injustice to one cannot bring justice to another. There is no credible evidence to suggest that death penalties deter crimes more effectively than other punishments. Rather than opting for inhumane punishment such as the death penalty, more focus must be given to proper implementation of existing laws, strengthening the investigation and prosecution process, and providing speedy justice. While it is important that all perpetrators of heinous crimes be brought to justice and given punishments that match the gravity of the offence, the death penalty should never be levelled against anyone.

Magar is a section officer at the High Court Tulsipur, Butwal Bench