Repeal Indonesia's Death Penalty: Rights Group
By Camelia Pasandaran
From: Jakarta Globe, 6 January 2010
Indonesian rights group Imparsial on Wednesday expressed concerns over the government’s reluctance to do away with the death penalty.
In its latest report released, the organization said that 21 of the 119 people sentenced to death across the country had been executed between 1998 and December 2009. It said that almost half of those were executed in 2008 alone, when 10 prisoners faced the firing squad.
"From past experience, death row prisoners can wait as long as 20 years before they are finally executed," said Al Araf, a senior research coordinator at the rights group.
He added that of the 119 prisoners on the death row, 55 were foreigners.
"Among the foreigners, the highest number comes from Nigeria, with 11 people," Al Araf said.
The other foreign prisoners on death row are from Australia, Nepal, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the Netherlands.
Al Araf said the government should commute the death sentence to life in prison for psoners that have been on death row for five years or more.
"After five years, the sanction should be changed to a life sentence," he said, adding that more than 60 of those currently on death row have been waiting for more than five years.
Nineteen of the 21 prisoners who have faced the firing squad since 1998 were convicted for murder. Those convicted of drug offenses were the second-largest group, and those convicted of terrorism charges were third.
Indonesia is one of 66 countries around the world that still implements the death penalty. Although the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, it has not adopted the second optional protocol aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.
Despite international pressure, the death penalty is still imposed for crimes in Indonesia.
Al Araf said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, and everyone had the right to life. "As an intrinsic right, there should be no exception in whatever situation," he said. "Instead, the death sentence has been promoted by politicians to show how serious they are in fighting crime. It has become a political commodity to win elections."
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s legal affairs adviser, Denny Indrayana, recently said the government’s stance was in line with a Constitutional Court ruling in March 2007 that threw out a judicial review filed by two Australians on death row, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. They had challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
PNG, Solomons advised against death penalty
No death penalty, expert advises PNG, Solomons
From ABC Radio Australia, 20 August 2009
Last Updated: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +1000
An Australian criminologist says Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea should not consider introducing the death penalty against violent crimes.
Both countries have high rates of crime and are considering capital punishment.
Professor Paul Wilson, from Australia's Bond University, in Queensland, says there is evidence in research from across the world that the death penalty does not reduce the rate of murder and violent crime.
He says despite this, many politicians choose to call for its introduction because they are aware there may be people in their electorates who could support it.
Professor Wilson has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat more needs to be done to study patterns of crime in PNG and the Solomons to determine better prevention and appropriate penalties.
"If you are going to reduce the murder rate or violence rate, you have to first of all analyse exactly how the violence is occuring, by whom, at what time, where, and the motiviationsm" he said.
"And that is a fairly substantial research job and then you have to apply quite well-known crime prevention methods, which will vary according to the location.
"You work it with a combination of zero-type policing."
From ABC Radio Australia, 20 August 2009
Last Updated: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +1000
An Australian criminologist says Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea should not consider introducing the death penalty against violent crimes.
Both countries have high rates of crime and are considering capital punishment.
Professor Paul Wilson, from Australia's Bond University, in Queensland, says there is evidence in research from across the world that the death penalty does not reduce the rate of murder and violent crime.
He says despite this, many politicians choose to call for its introduction because they are aware there may be people in their electorates who could support it.
Professor Wilson has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat more needs to be done to study patterns of crime in PNG and the Solomons to determine better prevention and appropriate penalties.
"If you are going to reduce the murder rate or violence rate, you have to first of all analyse exactly how the violence is occuring, by whom, at what time, where, and the motiviationsm" he said.
"And that is a fairly substantial research job and then you have to apply quite well-known crime prevention methods, which will vary according to the location.
"You work it with a combination of zero-type policing."
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Taiwan: Call for death penalty study
From the Taipei Times:
Academics call for review of policy that capital punishment deters crime
By Shelley Huang
Tuesday, Jun 02, 2009, Page 2
Academics yesterday urged the government to review its policy on capital punishment by conducting an in-depth study on whether it discourages crime.
A panel discussion on the death penalty and its effect on crime rates was held yesterday as part of a book launch to promote "New Ideology beyond the Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty," a collection of essays from a seminar organized by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty last November.
"We hope to initiate dialogue on the issue of the death penalty from a rational point of view," said Birgitt Ory, director of the German Institute Taipei, which co-sponsored the publication of the book.
The institute aims to share Germany's experiences following its abolition of the death penalty. It also hopes Taiwanese would find "living in a society without the death penalty is not only a possibility, but also a better choice," Ory said.
The book contains essays by four German academics and detailed discussions among the four and 15 Taiwanese experts who participated in the conference on social security, prison reform, protection of victims and other issues.
"What is written on paper will be preserved," Ory said. "We hope to provide thought-provoking ways of looking at the issue of the death penalty and inspire readers' thinking on the subject."
Panelists said that taking the life of a criminal was not necessarily the best way to compensate for the loss of the victim.
Experts urged President Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) administration to set a timeline for gradually abolishing the death penalty, instead of delaying it until the next president takes office.
Attorney Nigel Li (李念祖), who is also a board member of the Judicial Reform Foundation, said that since the legislature on March 31 ratified the Act Governing Execution of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法), Taiwan should re-examine its law on the death penalty.
Since Taiwan has not executed a death row prisoner in more than four years, panelists urged the government to perform a statistical analysis on the crime rate to determine whether the abolishment of death penalty would have any effect on discouraging crime.
Related stories:
Taiwanese group stirs debate on abolition -- 23 October 2008
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death -- 12 February 2008
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
Academics call for review of policy that capital punishment deters crime
By Shelley Huang
Tuesday, Jun 02, 2009, Page 2
Academics yesterday urged the government to review its policy on capital punishment by conducting an in-depth study on whether it discourages crime.
A panel discussion on the death penalty and its effect on crime rates was held yesterday as part of a book launch to promote "New Ideology beyond the Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty," a collection of essays from a seminar organized by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty last November.
"We hope to initiate dialogue on the issue of the death penalty from a rational point of view," said Birgitt Ory, director of the German Institute Taipei, which co-sponsored the publication of the book.
The institute aims to share Germany's experiences following its abolition of the death penalty. It also hopes Taiwanese would find "living in a society without the death penalty is not only a possibility, but also a better choice," Ory said.
The book contains essays by four German academics and detailed discussions among the four and 15 Taiwanese experts who participated in the conference on social security, prison reform, protection of victims and other issues.
"What is written on paper will be preserved," Ory said. "We hope to provide thought-provoking ways of looking at the issue of the death penalty and inspire readers' thinking on the subject."
Panelists said that taking the life of a criminal was not necessarily the best way to compensate for the loss of the victim.
Experts urged President Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) administration to set a timeline for gradually abolishing the death penalty, instead of delaying it until the next president takes office.
Attorney Nigel Li (李念祖), who is also a board member of the Judicial Reform Foundation, said that since the legislature on March 31 ratified the Act Governing Execution of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法), Taiwan should re-examine its law on the death penalty.
Since Taiwan has not executed a death row prisoner in more than four years, panelists urged the government to perform a statistical analysis on the crime rate to determine whether the abolishment of death penalty would have any effect on discouraging crime.
Related stories:
Taiwanese group stirs debate on abolition -- 23 October 2008
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death -- 12 February 2008
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Viet Nam: Death penalty reduction debated
Deputies in Viet Nam's national assembly (NA) have debated a proposal to reduce the number of capital crimes, including for corruption, bribery and producing fake drugs.
According to Thanh Nien News, the current session of the NA considered an amended draft criminal code, which would see the death sentence removed from 17 of the current 29 capital offences.
NA deputies spoke against removing the death penalty for these offences at sittings on 7 November.
"It is necessary to retain death sentences for embezzlement and bribery to prevent people from engaging in the crimes, as our fight against corruption is now very fierce," said Nguyen Dang Trung, NA deputy and Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.
Earlier in the week, judicial committee chairwoman Le Thi Thu Ba said the death penalty was necessary for bribery and corruption because they were "a national disaster".
The Thanh Nien report said deputies told the NA the death penalty should not be removed from crimes such as manufacturing counterfeit food and pharmaceutical products, because "it could affect human life on a large scale, hinder smooth economic growth and cause other serious consequences".
Other deputies argued it would not be reasonable to remove the death sentence for crimes against humanity and national security, when an offender could be executed for killing one person.
The reported comments left open the possibility that the death penalty could be removed for other offences on the proposed list, including for rape, fraud, smuggling and organising the illegal use of drugs.
"Developmental" need to kill
Presenters at a seminar in October argued the death penalty was necessary to deal with "extremely dangerous crimes", particularly given the country's current stage of development.
The VNA news service reported the workshop, organised by Vietnam's Institute of State and Law and Germany's KAS Institute, discussed the use of the death penalty and the possibility of abolition.
It reported that unnamed legal experts pointed to "the experiences of some countries at a similar developmental level to Vietnam" to argue the death penalty was needed to deter potential criminals against "certain crimes".
"They agreed that the abolition of the death penalty should follow a road map with specific steps depending on certain social conditions," the report said.
This is similar to the argument used by senior officials in China, who have argued the county needed to achieve a certain level of development before it could abolish the death penalty.
Notwithstanding this argument, the officials have been unable to point to evidence that the death penalty provides a greater degree of deterrence than other, less severe, punishments.
Ministry proposal
Vietnamese media reported in July that the Ministry of Public Security recommended the death penalty be abolished for 12 crimes, including smuggling, trading in false products and hijacking (ADP story here).
VietNamNet reported a recommendation would be made to the National Assembly to amend the Criminal Code to limit the penalty to what the paper described as "only to those committing the most heinous crimes and people considered to be a serious danger to the community and the nation's security".
"The aim of the amendment is to make the country’s criminal code more compliant with world trends to humanise laws and completely abolish the death penalty," said Nguyen Ngoc Anh, head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Public Security.
In 1999, the number of offences attracting a death sentence was reduced from 44 to 29 offences.
VietNamNet said 116 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 95 in 2007, although it did not confirm how many people were actually executed.
The July VietNamNet report said the full list included: appropriating property by fraud; smuggling; producing and trading fake food and medical products; being involved in producing, storing and circulating counterfeit money, bonds and cheques; organising the illegal use of drugs; hijacking aeroplanes or ships; corruption; taking and giving bribes; destroying army weapons or technical equipment; being involved in an invasion; anti-human crimes and those convicted of war crimes.
Human rights call
On 10 November Amnesty International encouraged Vietnamese authorities to "carry out the proposed reforms and introduce a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".
It said Vietname authorities did not allow international standards for fair trials to be followed in practice.
"Legal counsel is often assigned to defendants at the last minute, allowing little pre-trial preparation," the organisation said.
"The defence is not always allowed to call or question witnesses, and private consultation with counsel may be limited.
"In many cases, all the defence counsel can do is plead for clemency."
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Reduction in death penalty offences? -- 23 July 2008
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November 2006
According to Thanh Nien News, the current session of the NA considered an amended draft criminal code, which would see the death sentence removed from 17 of the current 29 capital offences.
NA deputies spoke against removing the death penalty for these offences at sittings on 7 November.
"It is necessary to retain death sentences for embezzlement and bribery to prevent people from engaging in the crimes, as our fight against corruption is now very fierce," said Nguyen Dang Trung, NA deputy and Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.
Earlier in the week, judicial committee chairwoman Le Thi Thu Ba said the death penalty was necessary for bribery and corruption because they were "a national disaster".
The Thanh Nien report said deputies told the NA the death penalty should not be removed from crimes such as manufacturing counterfeit food and pharmaceutical products, because "it could affect human life on a large scale, hinder smooth economic growth and cause other serious consequences".
Other deputies argued it would not be reasonable to remove the death sentence for crimes against humanity and national security, when an offender could be executed for killing one person.
The reported comments left open the possibility that the death penalty could be removed for other offences on the proposed list, including for rape, fraud, smuggling and organising the illegal use of drugs.
"Developmental" need to kill
Presenters at a seminar in October argued the death penalty was necessary to deal with "extremely dangerous crimes", particularly given the country's current stage of development.
The VNA news service reported the workshop, organised by Vietnam's Institute of State and Law and Germany's KAS Institute, discussed the use of the death penalty and the possibility of abolition.
It reported that unnamed legal experts pointed to "the experiences of some countries at a similar developmental level to Vietnam" to argue the death penalty was needed to deter potential criminals against "certain crimes".
"They agreed that the abolition of the death penalty should follow a road map with specific steps depending on certain social conditions," the report said.
This is similar to the argument used by senior officials in China, who have argued the county needed to achieve a certain level of development before it could abolish the death penalty.
Notwithstanding this argument, the officials have been unable to point to evidence that the death penalty provides a greater degree of deterrence than other, less severe, punishments.
Ministry proposal
Vietnamese media reported in July that the Ministry of Public Security recommended the death penalty be abolished for 12 crimes, including smuggling, trading in false products and hijacking (ADP story here).
VietNamNet reported a recommendation would be made to the National Assembly to amend the Criminal Code to limit the penalty to what the paper described as "only to those committing the most heinous crimes and people considered to be a serious danger to the community and the nation's security".
"The aim of the amendment is to make the country’s criminal code more compliant with world trends to humanise laws and completely abolish the death penalty," said Nguyen Ngoc Anh, head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Public Security.
In 1999, the number of offences attracting a death sentence was reduced from 44 to 29 offences.
VietNamNet said 116 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 95 in 2007, although it did not confirm how many people were actually executed.
The July VietNamNet report said the full list included: appropriating property by fraud; smuggling; producing and trading fake food and medical products; being involved in producing, storing and circulating counterfeit money, bonds and cheques; organising the illegal use of drugs; hijacking aeroplanes or ships; corruption; taking and giving bribes; destroying army weapons or technical equipment; being involved in an invasion; anti-human crimes and those convicted of war crimes.
Human rights call
On 10 November Amnesty International encouraged Vietnamese authorities to "carry out the proposed reforms and introduce a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".
It said Vietname authorities did not allow international standards for fair trials to be followed in practice.
"Legal counsel is often assigned to defendants at the last minute, allowing little pre-trial preparation," the organisation said.
"The defence is not always allowed to call or question witnesses, and private consultation with counsel may be limited.
"In many cases, all the defence counsel can do is plead for clemency."
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Reduction in death penalty offences? -- 23 July 2008
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November 2006
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers
Two international human rights organisations have called on the Indonesian government to grant clemency to the three Bali bombers, who may be killed by firing squad as early as tonight.
Indonesian human rights organisations have also protested against the country's use of the death penalty.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) this week wrote to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urging him "in the strongest terms" to halt the executions [27 Oct].
Amnesty International (AI) released a statement opposing the executions and calling on Indonesia to "draw a line under its policy of escalating executions" and establish a moratorium [31 Oct].
Seven people have been executed in Indonesia since June 2008, five for murder and two for drug offences.
Illegal, against the trend
Human Rights Watch argued in its letter that the three death sentences were a breach of international human rights standards, as well as running counter to an international trend away from the death penalty.
"Rather than allow the executions to go forward, you should commute the men’s sentences to life in prison," wrote Joanne Mariner Elaine Pearson, deputy director of the organisation's terrorism and counterterrorism Asia division.
The organisation was particularly critical that the three men were sentenced to death under special counter-terrorism legislation enacted after the bombing, when retroactive criminal laws are prohibited under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said Human Rights Watch "strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality".
"We also note that there is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty serves as a more effective deterrent against criminal activity than other forms of punishment."
Human Rights Watch said it deplored acts of terrorism and recognised "the government's duty to bring to justice persons responsible for such serious crimes".
"We condemn the 2002 Bali bombings as horrific and inexcusable attacks, and believe that the perpetrators should be held to account," the letter said.
"We strongly believe, however, that the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction, particularly in this instance."
The human rights organisation was also concerned that Indonesia retained and used the death penalty "contrary to the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty", and had recently increased the rate of executions.
Simply more violations
The latest statement from Amnesty International said the executions would add further human rights violations to the violation of the original attacks.
"While the Bali attacks were a horrific atrocity, Amnesty International firmly believes that to continue the cycle of violence through state sanctioned killing will not bring redress for the victims, and furthermore answers the violation of human rights with further violations," it said.
While there was "no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters future criminal acts", Amnesty International said these executions "may only serve to perpetuate such atrocities".
"There is a serious risk that the executions will turn the bombers from murderers to martyrs, whose memories will be used to increase support and recruitment to their cause."
It said the death penalty was the ultimate denial of human rights, and it said unequivocally that it was opposed to it "in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".
This was instead an opportunity for "Indonesia to draw a line under its policy of escalating executions and to establish an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition".
The organisation issued a revised action appeal on 16 October 2008, calling for its supporters to appeal to the Indonesian government for all death sentences to be commuted, including those imposed on the three bombers.
It also asked people to express concern that the law under which the three were convicted was applied retrospectively, "violating international law and the Indonesian Constitution".
Related stories:
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Indonesian human rights organisations have also protested against the country's use of the death penalty.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) this week wrote to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urging him "in the strongest terms" to halt the executions [27 Oct].
Amnesty International (AI) released a statement opposing the executions and calling on Indonesia to "draw a line under its policy of escalating executions" and establish a moratorium [31 Oct].
Seven people have been executed in Indonesia since June 2008, five for murder and two for drug offences.
Illegal, against the trend
Human Rights Watch argued in its letter that the three death sentences were a breach of international human rights standards, as well as running counter to an international trend away from the death penalty.
"Rather than allow the executions to go forward, you should commute the men’s sentences to life in prison," wrote Joanne Mariner Elaine Pearson, deputy director of the organisation's terrorism and counterterrorism Asia division.
The organisation was particularly critical that the three men were sentenced to death under special counter-terrorism legislation enacted after the bombing, when retroactive criminal laws are prohibited under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said Human Rights Watch "strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality".
"We also note that there is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty serves as a more effective deterrent against criminal activity than other forms of punishment."
Human Rights Watch said it deplored acts of terrorism and recognised "the government's duty to bring to justice persons responsible for such serious crimes".
"We condemn the 2002 Bali bombings as horrific and inexcusable attacks, and believe that the perpetrators should be held to account," the letter said.
"We strongly believe, however, that the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction, particularly in this instance."
The human rights organisation was also concerned that Indonesia retained and used the death penalty "contrary to the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty", and had recently increased the rate of executions.
Simply more violations
The latest statement from Amnesty International said the executions would add further human rights violations to the violation of the original attacks.
"While the Bali attacks were a horrific atrocity, Amnesty International firmly believes that to continue the cycle of violence through state sanctioned killing will not bring redress for the victims, and furthermore answers the violation of human rights with further violations," it said.
While there was "no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters future criminal acts", Amnesty International said these executions "may only serve to perpetuate such atrocities".
"There is a serious risk that the executions will turn the bombers from murderers to martyrs, whose memories will be used to increase support and recruitment to their cause."
It said the death penalty was the ultimate denial of human rights, and it said unequivocally that it was opposed to it "in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".
This was instead an opportunity for "Indonesia to draw a line under its policy of escalating executions and to establish an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition".
The organisation issued a revised action appeal on 16 October 2008, calling for its supporters to appeal to the Indonesian government for all death sentences to be commuted, including those imposed on the three bombers.
It also asked people to express concern that the law under which the three were convicted was applied retrospectively, "violating international law and the Indonesian Constitution".
Related stories:
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Friday, 31 October 2008
Execution wrong - even for terrorists
Comment by Tim Goodwin
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.
After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.
Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.
Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.
But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?
Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.
Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.
Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.
Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.
The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.
When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.
The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.
The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.
For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.
Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.
The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.
We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.
After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.
Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.
Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.
But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?
Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.
Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.
Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.
Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.
The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.
When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.
The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.
The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.
For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.
Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.
The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.
We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Taiwanese group stirs debate on abolition
A Taiwanese abolitionist group has encouraged the government to set an example in Asia by abolishing the death penalty and is holding a series of events to promote debate on the issue.
The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) staged a concert on 10 October, the World Day Against the Death Penalty, to promote its campaign and next month it will hold a series of international forums on criminal code reform.
Taiwan was one of six countries chosen by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) for the day of action, and human rights campaigners worldwide encouraged the government to introduce a moratorium on executions.
The TAEDP pointed to global trends against the death penalty and recent statements by senior government leaders.
"Abolishing the death penalty is actually a global trend," said TAEDP executive director Lin Hsin-yi (林欣怡) on the World Day, according to the Taipei Times.
"We've seen too many cases around the world in which people are found innocent only after they were executed — There is unfortunately no chance of reversing the sentence for them."
She said there were positive signs Taiwan could play a leading role in abolition across Asia.
"There has been no execution at all in Taiwan for nearly three years, and there are already debates on the topic," she said.
"We think there’s a hope, especially because Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng [王清峰] has openly spoken against the death penalty and President Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] hinted so as well during the [presidential] campaign."
Wang has said she supported abolition and Ma campaigned on a promise to uphold international human rights standards.
"Although Ma did not say it clearly, ending the death penalty is one of the ideas outlined in these documents," Lin said.
Partnerships stimulate debate
Next month the TAEDP will hold forums with experts from three European countries to share perspectives on abolition and inform debate about reform.
The Taipei Times reported the first forum on 3 November would hear from two leading French lawyers, who would speak about reform of the criminal code and international law.
The event is being organised in conjunction with the French office in Taiwan, the National Taipei University and the Taiwan Law Society, with support from the European Economic and Trade Office.
"The objective of Taiwan's Criminal Code is to re-educate and reform prisoners, not to kill them," a TAEDP volunteer told the Taipei Times.
German academics will discuss abolition, social safety, victim protection and prison reform at a seminar on 6 and 7 November, organised by the TAEDP and the German Institute in Taipei.
Death penalty experts from Great Britain will address the process of ending the death penalty on 13 and 14 November.
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death -- 12 February 2008
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) staged a concert on 10 October, the World Day Against the Death Penalty, to promote its campaign and next month it will hold a series of international forums on criminal code reform.
Taiwan was one of six countries chosen by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) for the day of action, and human rights campaigners worldwide encouraged the government to introduce a moratorium on executions.
The TAEDP pointed to global trends against the death penalty and recent statements by senior government leaders.
"Abolishing the death penalty is actually a global trend," said TAEDP executive director Lin Hsin-yi (林欣怡) on the World Day, according to the Taipei Times.
"We've seen too many cases around the world in which people are found innocent only after they were executed — There is unfortunately no chance of reversing the sentence for them."
She said there were positive signs Taiwan could play a leading role in abolition across Asia.
"There has been no execution at all in Taiwan for nearly three years, and there are already debates on the topic," she said.
"We think there’s a hope, especially because Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng [王清峰] has openly spoken against the death penalty and President Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] hinted so as well during the [presidential] campaign."
Wang has said she supported abolition and Ma campaigned on a promise to uphold international human rights standards.
"Although Ma did not say it clearly, ending the death penalty is one of the ideas outlined in these documents," Lin said.
Partnerships stimulate debate
Next month the TAEDP will hold forums with experts from three European countries to share perspectives on abolition and inform debate about reform.
The Taipei Times reported the first forum on 3 November would hear from two leading French lawyers, who would speak about reform of the criminal code and international law.
The event is being organised in conjunction with the French office in Taiwan, the National Taipei University and the Taiwan Law Society, with support from the European Economic and Trade Office.
"The objective of Taiwan's Criminal Code is to re-educate and reform prisoners, not to kill them," a TAEDP volunteer told the Taipei Times.
German academics will discuss abolition, social safety, victim protection and prison reform at a seminar on 6 and 7 November, organised by the TAEDP and the German Institute in Taipei.
Death penalty experts from Great Britain will address the process of ending the death penalty on 13 and 14 November.
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death -- 12 February 2008
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
Friday, 6 June 2008
Abolition: Political parties fail in Taiwan
The Taipei Times newspaper has condemned both of the country's main political parties for failing to abolish the death penalty, and failing to inform public debate about whether it was appropriate or effective.
In a sharply critical editorial on 28 May, the newspaper said the death penalty was an example of governments' selective use of public opinion, which was "ignored or drawn upon" by policy makers to serve their own interests.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reduced the use of the death penalty over its eight years in office, but it "failed to carry out one of its professed goals" of abolishing it altogether.
The DPP had claimed it could not abolish the death penalty "because a majority of the public believed the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to violent crime".
The newspaper feared the current government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) already appeared "set to follow suit".
The current Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said shortly after the government's inauguration that she would consider abolishing the death penalty.
But "[i]n the same breath, however, she warned that she had no clue how to go about achieving this goal, as it would run counter to public opinion".
Ineffective revenge
The Taipei Times said neither party had promoted the increasing number of countries that had abolished the death penalty, leaving Taiwan "among a shrinking minority".
Furthermore, studies had not found evidence the death penalty deterred violent crime, or that it increased after abolition.
"Capital punishment can therefore only serve two purposes: to assure the public that this "effective" deterrent exists (although it is not effective) and to fill a need for retribution proportional to the crime committed," the editorial said.
"But modern justice systems have long since abandoned the "eye for an eye" philosophy as inadequate, inappropriate and inhumane."
It said the country's experience with doubtful trials had shown any claim the courts were infallible "would be laughable".
"The government must therefore make it clear to the public: Even one innocent person executed is far too high a price for what essentially boils down to revenge."
'Stop the excuses'
The editorial writers said factors such as the global trend away from the death penalty, and reassurance of measures such as regulating parole for violent criminals, could help move public opinion.
They concluded: "It would seem, then, not so daunting a task after all to present an alternative to the death penalty that both the public and government find fair.
"It is time for Taiwan's leaders to stop serving up excuses and set the ball in motion."
(Thanks to Celia at China Activist Weekly for the tip.)
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death --12 February, 2008
Taiwan 'improving' but call for abolition -- 11 October, 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May, 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
In a sharply critical editorial on 28 May, the newspaper said the death penalty was an example of governments' selective use of public opinion, which was "ignored or drawn upon" by policy makers to serve their own interests.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reduced the use of the death penalty over its eight years in office, but it "failed to carry out one of its professed goals" of abolishing it altogether.
The DPP had claimed it could not abolish the death penalty "because a majority of the public believed the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to violent crime".
The newspaper feared the current government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) already appeared "set to follow suit".
The current Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said shortly after the government's inauguration that she would consider abolishing the death penalty.
But "[i]n the same breath, however, she warned that she had no clue how to go about achieving this goal, as it would run counter to public opinion".
Ineffective revenge
The Taipei Times said neither party had promoted the increasing number of countries that had abolished the death penalty, leaving Taiwan "among a shrinking minority".
Furthermore, studies had not found evidence the death penalty deterred violent crime, or that it increased after abolition.
"Capital punishment can therefore only serve two purposes: to assure the public that this "effective" deterrent exists (although it is not effective) and to fill a need for retribution proportional to the crime committed," the editorial said.
"But modern justice systems have long since abandoned the "eye for an eye" philosophy as inadequate, inappropriate and inhumane."
It said the country's experience with doubtful trials had shown any claim the courts were infallible "would be laughable".
"The government must therefore make it clear to the public: Even one innocent person executed is far too high a price for what essentially boils down to revenge."
'Stop the excuses'
The editorial writers said factors such as the global trend away from the death penalty, and reassurance of measures such as regulating parole for violent criminals, could help move public opinion.
They concluded: "It would seem, then, not so daunting a task after all to present an alternative to the death penalty that both the public and government find fair.
"It is time for Taiwan's leaders to stop serving up excuses and set the ball in motion."
(Thanks to Celia at China Activist Weekly for the tip.)
Related stories:
Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death --12 February, 2008
Taiwan 'improving' but call for abolition -- 11 October, 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May, 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions
[Please note: long post]
Australia's response to the death penalty in Asia became part of the unofficial election campaign yesterday, with both major parties competing to show how many conditions they could attach to their "opposition" to capital punishment.
The issue hit the headlines after a speech on Monday night by Robert McClelland, the Australian Labor Party's foreign affairs spokesman, committing a future Labor government to a consistent stance opposing the use of the death penalty and to "shrewd diplomatic activism" within the region.
The speech was criticised for its timing, coming four days before the anniversary of the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. Three men in Indonesia currently face execution for organising the bombings after the final appeals against their death sentences were rejected in August and September.
The Australian Prime Minister and senior government ministers attacked the speech and claimed the Labor party proposed to use Australian diplomats to plead for the lives of the convicted Bali bombers.
On Tuesday opposition leader Kevin Rudd moved swiftly to distance himself from the speech and gave his spokesperson a humiliating public rebuke.
Mr Rudd said the speech was "insensitive" and a staff member in his office was being "counselled" for failing to raise concerns over a draft of the speech.
He said a future Labor government would not make diplomatic moves to argue for clemency in terrorist cases, but it would oppose the death penalty through multilateral channels at the United Nations.
Both the government and opposition said they would only intervene in individual cases involving Australian citizens facing execution.
McClelland's speech
Shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland addressed the Wentworth Human Rights Forum, giving a speech that had been cleared with the office of the opposition leader.
"Labor believes that supporting executions - even by a nation state - gives justification to all kinds of fanatical lunatics to take the lives of others in pursuit of their warped ideologies," Mr McClelland said.
"That is why, at the highest levels Australia's public comments about the death penalty must be consistent with policy. This is especially the case if we are going to tactfully and successfully drive a regional abolitionist movement."
Mr McClelland said a Labor government would launch a regional campaign against executions in the Asian region.
He criticised the Prime Minister for supporting "the executions of the perpetrators of the Bali bombings, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein" while also claiming "Australia opposed capital punishment".
He also said Mr Howard's inconsistency in the cases exposed Australia to claims of hypocrisy and undermined diplomatic efforts to spare the life of Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen, who was hanged in Singapore in 2005.
He said a Labor government would be consistent in its public comments on the death penalty.
Government condemnation
Prime Minister John Howard said the speech was an "extraordinary call by the Labor Party for the executions of the Bali Bombers not to take place".
He said the Labor Party's opposition to the death penalty was "an insensitive policy", and he highlighted other occasions when Mr Rudd had opposed executions.
"The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community and I remind you that earlier this year, Mr Rudd, when Saddam Hussein was executed, expressed his continuing opposition to the death penalty imposed by other countries," Mr Howard said.
"We do not support the death penalty in Australia and my Government has consistently argued when Australians have faced the death penalty overseas for that penalty not to be applied.
"But what other countries do is ultimately a matter for those other countries, and particularly when people are under sentence of death for murdering Australians.
"I find it impossible myself, as an Australian, as Prime Minister, as an individual, to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women."
The Australian government's policy in recent years has been to claim that in principle it is 'universally and consistently' opposed to the death penalty, but in practice to argue only that Australian citizens should be spared the punishment.
In 2003 the Prime Minister told an interviewer that "everybody" would welcome the execution of Osama Bin Laden. More recently he expressed his satisfaction at the hanging of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and said the Australian government has no objections to the execution of the three Bali bombers.
Labor leader's reaction
Mr Rudd quickly attempted to neutralise reaction to his spokesman's comments, saying he would not use Australian diplomats to argue for clemency for terrorists and criticising the timing of the speech.
"I believe that the speech delivered last night was insensitive in terms of its timing," Mr Rudd said.
"I've indicated that to Mr McClelland this morning and he concurs with that judgement.
"When it comes to the question of the death penalty, no diplomatic intervention will ever be made by any government that I lead in support of any individual terrorist life."
He said he would only intervene on behalf of Australians facing execution overseas.
"We have only indicated in the past, and will maintain a policy in the future, of intervening diplomatically in support of Australian nationals who face capital sentences abroad."
Any campaigning against the death penalty would only be undertaken at the international level.
"On the wider question of the death penalty, the Liberal Party's policy, like Labor's policy, is identical, and that is our global opposition to the death penalty.
"In terms of the prosecution of that matter, that is best done multilaterally through the United Nations."
He did, however, later suggest that in order to build up a consensus against the death penalty over time he would "seek to engage regional states and other states in support of that proposition".
Past calls
In August 2006, the Labor party's shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon MP said Australia should take stronger action against the death penalty.
She said in a statement that Australia should "advocate more strongly" for its neighbours and allies to abolish the death penalty, and any method of execution was "inhumane, no matter what the crime".
"Australia needs to use its position internationally and in the region to abolish the death penalty universally," Ms Roxon said.
On 3 December 2005, the day after Van Tuong Nguyen was hanged, then shadow foreign minister Mr Rudd said there was "a lot that Australia can do" to help abolish the death penalty worldwide.
He said Australia should "get behind" European efforts in the United Nations "to put in every effort to abolish this form of punishment, once and for all, throughout the world, and for all time".
He also called for consistent opposition to the death penalty.
"It is important that our policy is consistent. Labor policy, like the Liberal policy, worldwide, is opposed to the death penalty.
"And whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent."
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June, 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August, 2006
Australia's response to the death penalty in Asia became part of the unofficial election campaign yesterday, with both major parties competing to show how many conditions they could attach to their "opposition" to capital punishment.
The issue hit the headlines after a speech on Monday night by Robert McClelland, the Australian Labor Party's foreign affairs spokesman, committing a future Labor government to a consistent stance opposing the use of the death penalty and to "shrewd diplomatic activism" within the region.
The speech was criticised for its timing, coming four days before the anniversary of the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. Three men in Indonesia currently face execution for organising the bombings after the final appeals against their death sentences were rejected in August and September.
The Australian Prime Minister and senior government ministers attacked the speech and claimed the Labor party proposed to use Australian diplomats to plead for the lives of the convicted Bali bombers.
On Tuesday opposition leader Kevin Rudd moved swiftly to distance himself from the speech and gave his spokesperson a humiliating public rebuke.
Mr Rudd said the speech was "insensitive" and a staff member in his office was being "counselled" for failing to raise concerns over a draft of the speech.
He said a future Labor government would not make diplomatic moves to argue for clemency in terrorist cases, but it would oppose the death penalty through multilateral channels at the United Nations.
Both the government and opposition said they would only intervene in individual cases involving Australian citizens facing execution.
McClelland's speech
Shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland addressed the Wentworth Human Rights Forum, giving a speech that had been cleared with the office of the opposition leader.
"Labor believes that supporting executions - even by a nation state - gives justification to all kinds of fanatical lunatics to take the lives of others in pursuit of their warped ideologies," Mr McClelland said.
"That is why, at the highest levels Australia's public comments about the death penalty must be consistent with policy. This is especially the case if we are going to tactfully and successfully drive a regional abolitionist movement."
Mr McClelland said a Labor government would launch a regional campaign against executions in the Asian region.
He criticised the Prime Minister for supporting "the executions of the perpetrators of the Bali bombings, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein" while also claiming "Australia opposed capital punishment".
He also said Mr Howard's inconsistency in the cases exposed Australia to claims of hypocrisy and undermined diplomatic efforts to spare the life of Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen, who was hanged in Singapore in 2005.
He said a Labor government would be consistent in its public comments on the death penalty.
Government condemnation
Prime Minister John Howard said the speech was an "extraordinary call by the Labor Party for the executions of the Bali Bombers not to take place".
He said the Labor Party's opposition to the death penalty was "an insensitive policy", and he highlighted other occasions when Mr Rudd had opposed executions.
"The idea that we would plead for the deferral of executions of people who murdered 88 Australians is distasteful to the entire community and I remind you that earlier this year, Mr Rudd, when Saddam Hussein was executed, expressed his continuing opposition to the death penalty imposed by other countries," Mr Howard said.
"We do not support the death penalty in Australia and my Government has consistently argued when Australians have faced the death penalty overseas for that penalty not to be applied.
"But what other countries do is ultimately a matter for those other countries, and particularly when people are under sentence of death for murdering Australians.
"I find it impossible myself, as an Australian, as Prime Minister, as an individual, to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women."
The Australian government's policy in recent years has been to claim that in principle it is 'universally and consistently' opposed to the death penalty, but in practice to argue only that Australian citizens should be spared the punishment.
In 2003 the Prime Minister told an interviewer that "everybody" would welcome the execution of Osama Bin Laden. More recently he expressed his satisfaction at the hanging of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and said the Australian government has no objections to the execution of the three Bali bombers.
Labor leader's reaction
Mr Rudd quickly attempted to neutralise reaction to his spokesman's comments, saying he would not use Australian diplomats to argue for clemency for terrorists and criticising the timing of the speech.
"I believe that the speech delivered last night was insensitive in terms of its timing," Mr Rudd said.
"I've indicated that to Mr McClelland this morning and he concurs with that judgement.
"When it comes to the question of the death penalty, no diplomatic intervention will ever be made by any government that I lead in support of any individual terrorist life."
He said he would only intervene on behalf of Australians facing execution overseas.
"We have only indicated in the past, and will maintain a policy in the future, of intervening diplomatically in support of Australian nationals who face capital sentences abroad."
Any campaigning against the death penalty would only be undertaken at the international level.
"On the wider question of the death penalty, the Liberal Party's policy, like Labor's policy, is identical, and that is our global opposition to the death penalty.
"In terms of the prosecution of that matter, that is best done multilaterally through the United Nations."
He did, however, later suggest that in order to build up a consensus against the death penalty over time he would "seek to engage regional states and other states in support of that proposition".
Past calls
In August 2006, the Labor party's shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon MP said Australia should take stronger action against the death penalty.
She said in a statement that Australia should "advocate more strongly" for its neighbours and allies to abolish the death penalty, and any method of execution was "inhumane, no matter what the crime".
"Australia needs to use its position internationally and in the region to abolish the death penalty universally," Ms Roxon said.
On 3 December 2005, the day after Van Tuong Nguyen was hanged, then shadow foreign minister Mr Rudd said there was "a lot that Australia can do" to help abolish the death penalty worldwide.
He said Australia should "get behind" European efforts in the United Nations "to put in every effort to abolish this form of punishment, once and for all, throughout the world, and for all time".
He also called for consistent opposition to the death penalty.
"It is important that our policy is consistent. Labor policy, like the Liberal policy, worldwide, is opposed to the death penalty.
"And whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent."
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June, 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August, 2006
Sunday, 8 July 2007
Asian activists condemn drug executions
An Asian network of anti-death penalty activists has condemned the region's widespread use of the death penalty for drug offences, despite there being "no convincing evidence" the punishment provides a greater level of deterrence.
The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) released a statement on United Nations Anti-Drugs Day, 26 June, expressing its "growing concern that more people are sentenced to death for drug offences than for any other crime in a number of Asia Pacific countries".
"This is at a time when there is a worldwide trend towards restricting and abolishing the death penalty."
Sixteen Asia Pacific countries continued to apply the death penalty for drug trafficking and possession offences, said ADPAN.
The network recognised that governments should take "appropriate law-enforcement measures" against drug trafficking and crime, including meeting their obligations under international drug control treaties.
"However there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty deters would-be drug traffickers more than any other punishment," it said.
'Not deterring'
The statement said Amnesty International did not know of any evidence that the death penalty had lead to a drop in drug use or trafficking in any of the sixteen countries.
"In China for example, police data shows that the number of drug users grew 35 percent in the five years since 2000.
"In Viet Nam, the BBC quoted an official who said in 2005 the quantity of drugs seized by customs had increased 400 percent year-on-year, despite its use of the death penalty."
Secret, mandatory, guilty
It also condemned the secrecy, mandatory sentences and discrimination that exacerbate the use of the death penalty for drugs.
It was not possible to determine how many death senences were imposed for drug crimes in the region because "the death penalty is shrouded in secrecy in many Asian countries".
"However, reports have shown that in South East Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, the majority of death penalty cases are for drug crimes."
ADPAN said the death penalty was mandatory for certain drug offences in Brunei, India, Laos, Thailand, North Korea, Singapore and Malaysia, which gave judges "no authority to take into account extenuating circumstances" in individual cases.
The network was also particularly concerned that countries including Malaysia, China and Singapore made a presumption of guilt for drug offences, reversing the international legal standard that an accused person should first be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.
This reversal was even more worrying in capital cases because it "increases the risk that an innocent person may be executed".
Discrimination
The statement said there was evidence that the death penalty was disproportionately used on "the poorest, most vulnerable members of society", including in drug trafficking cases.
"In many cases, people have become involved in drug trafficking out of desperation or ignorance.
"Executing these people not only fails to deter others, but also fails to deal with the underlying issues that drive them to offend, such as poverty and lack of education, and obviously precludes the possibility of reform."
Steps to abolition
The ADPAN statement urged countries in the Asia Pacific to follow the lead of the Philippines and Nepal and move towards abolition of the death penalty.
It said countries should start by "ending the use of the death penalty for drugs offences and studying and implementing alternative treatment to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime".
ADPAN said the sixteen Asia Pacific countries that still had the death penalty for drug crimes were: Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
ADPAN described itself as "is an independent informal network with over 34 members made up of individuals and organizations from 18 countries mainly from the Asia-Pacific region".
Related stories:
New voice against Asia's executions -- 10 October, 2006
The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) released a statement on United Nations Anti-Drugs Day, 26 June, expressing its "growing concern that more people are sentenced to death for drug offences than for any other crime in a number of Asia Pacific countries".
"This is at a time when there is a worldwide trend towards restricting and abolishing the death penalty."
Sixteen Asia Pacific countries continued to apply the death penalty for drug trafficking and possession offences, said ADPAN.
The network recognised that governments should take "appropriate law-enforcement measures" against drug trafficking and crime, including meeting their obligations under international drug control treaties.
"However there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty deters would-be drug traffickers more than any other punishment," it said.
'Not deterring'
The statement said Amnesty International did not know of any evidence that the death penalty had lead to a drop in drug use or trafficking in any of the sixteen countries.
"In China for example, police data shows that the number of drug users grew 35 percent in the five years since 2000.
"In Viet Nam, the BBC quoted an official who said in 2005 the quantity of drugs seized by customs had increased 400 percent year-on-year, despite its use of the death penalty."
Secret, mandatory, guilty
It also condemned the secrecy, mandatory sentences and discrimination that exacerbate the use of the death penalty for drugs.
It was not possible to determine how many death senences were imposed for drug crimes in the region because "the death penalty is shrouded in secrecy in many Asian countries".
"However, reports have shown that in South East Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, the majority of death penalty cases are for drug crimes."
ADPAN said the death penalty was mandatory for certain drug offences in Brunei, India, Laos, Thailand, North Korea, Singapore and Malaysia, which gave judges "no authority to take into account extenuating circumstances" in individual cases.
The network was also particularly concerned that countries including Malaysia, China and Singapore made a presumption of guilt for drug offences, reversing the international legal standard that an accused person should first be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial.
This reversal was even more worrying in capital cases because it "increases the risk that an innocent person may be executed".
Discrimination
The statement said there was evidence that the death penalty was disproportionately used on "the poorest, most vulnerable members of society", including in drug trafficking cases.
"In many cases, people have become involved in drug trafficking out of desperation or ignorance.
"Executing these people not only fails to deter others, but also fails to deal with the underlying issues that drive them to offend, such as poverty and lack of education, and obviously precludes the possibility of reform."
Steps to abolition
The ADPAN statement urged countries in the Asia Pacific to follow the lead of the Philippines and Nepal and move towards abolition of the death penalty.
It said countries should start by "ending the use of the death penalty for drugs offences and studying and implementing alternative treatment to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime".
ADPAN said the sixteen Asia Pacific countries that still had the death penalty for drug crimes were: Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
ADPAN described itself as "is an independent informal network with over 34 members made up of individuals and organizations from 18 countries mainly from the Asia-Pacific region".
Related stories:
New voice against Asia's executions -- 10 October, 2006
Monday, 19 February 2007
South Korea: death penalty not on 'roadmap'
A new human rights 'roadmap' issued by South Korea's Ministry of Justice has ignored calls for the abolition of the death penalty.
The roadmap for human rights protection, announced on 13 February, deferred a decision on abolishing the death penalty, according to the English language edition of The Hankyoreh.
South Korea's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has repeatedly called for the country to move towards abolition.
The roadmap also ignored calls for the abolition of the country's notorious National Security Law.
The ministry said it was deferring a decision on the death penalty, but in the first half of this year it would review whether the penalty should be abolished.
It said the government would consider the introduction of an 'absolute life sentence' and would try to take into account the outcome of the current National Assembly discussion of a bill abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, the Ministry of Justice also announced it would review the death penalty and consider replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment. At the time, this was seen as a significant concession from a ministry that had previously opposed moves towards abolition in the National Assembly.
The Hankyoreh report said the NHRC "could not understand why the Ministry of Justice's draft sought to defer a decision on abolishing the National Security Law and [the] death penalty".
In 2005, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission recommended the death penalty be abolished, and in early 2006 it recommended the government set out a plan for human rights.
The last executions in South Korea were carried out in December 1997, when 23 people were hanged.
Related stories:
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June , 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April, 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March, 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February, 2006
Positive signs in the Philippines and South Korea -- 22 February, 2006
The roadmap for human rights protection, announced on 13 February, deferred a decision on abolishing the death penalty, according to the English language edition of The Hankyoreh.
South Korea's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has repeatedly called for the country to move towards abolition.
The roadmap also ignored calls for the abolition of the country's notorious National Security Law.
The ministry said it was deferring a decision on the death penalty, but in the first half of this year it would review whether the penalty should be abolished.
It said the government would consider the introduction of an 'absolute life sentence' and would try to take into account the outcome of the current National Assembly discussion of a bill abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, the Ministry of Justice also announced it would review the death penalty and consider replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment. At the time, this was seen as a significant concession from a ministry that had previously opposed moves towards abolition in the National Assembly.
The Hankyoreh report said the NHRC "could not understand why the Ministry of Justice's draft sought to defer a decision on abolishing the National Security Law and [the] death penalty".
In 2005, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission recommended the death penalty be abolished, and in early 2006 it recommended the government set out a plan for human rights.
The last executions in South Korea were carried out in December 1997, when 23 people were hanged.
Related stories:
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June , 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April, 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March, 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February, 2006
Positive signs in the Philippines and South Korea -- 22 February, 2006
Monday, 5 February 2007
Ronald Ryan forty years on
Key people involved in the trial and execution of Ronald Ryan last weekend commemorated the fortieth anniversary of his death - the last judicial hanging in Australia.
Ryan was hanged at 8am on 3 February 1967, in Melbourne's Pentridge Prison.
He was sentenced to death for the murder of prison officer George Hodson, who was shot during a prison escape by Ryan and Peter Walker in December 1965.
The escape sparked "the biggest police manhunt in the state's history," according to Mike Richards, Ryan's biographer.
Over 17 days on the run, they held up a bank at gunpoint and Walker killed an associate, fearing he would give them up to police.
Richards said there was "widespread and genuine fear [of the two men] in the Melbourne community", accompanied by "saturation media coverage" until they were recaptured.
Ryan, a long-term petty criminal before the prison escape, was given a mandatory death sentence following his conviction for murder.
Defence counsel Dr Philip Opas has always argued Ryan was innocent, pointing to inconsistent witness statements and confusion over whether his gun could be proven to have killed the prison officer.
But his biographer accepted his guilt, and last weekend Richards wrote that Ryan confessed to Pentridge prison governor Ian Grindlay the night before he was hanged.
He said Ryan had fired so Hodson would not recapture Walker, and quoted Ryan as saying: "I did shoot him. But I didn't mean to kill him . . . only to stop him."
Protest at 'political hanging'
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, most death sentences in Victoria were routinely commuted to life imprisonment.
In the summer of 1966-67, lawyers, students and church leaders organised an extraordinary campaign for clemency, but Liberal premier Henry Bolte appeared determined to prove his credentials on crime by insisting on Ryan's execution.
Pleas for mercy from key community leaders were concealed from Bolte's cabinet colleagues, and the premier ignored requests from Dr Opas to address cabinet. Members of Ryan's jury, who had not believed the death sentence would ever be carried out, also petitioned the state governor.
On the morning of the execution, thousands joined protests outside Pentridge Prison.
"Ryan was hanged for political reasons and I don't believe those kind of reasons have changed anywhere in the world where people are executed," Dr Opus said last week. "Bolte said 'nothing transcends politics'."
Former Anglican bishop Tom Frame noted the day before the anniversary that: "At the Victorian state elections held 85 days after the execution, Bolte increased his party's primary vote and parliamentary majority."
Ryan's other legacy: Abolition
The controversy surrounding Ryan's hanging generated widespread revulsion at the use of the death penalty - and its politicisation - and created the momentum for eventual abolition across Australia.
According to biographer Mike Richards, who led student protests in the months before the execution, "it marks the event that prompted state governments still retaining the death penalty to cut the crimson thread running through Australia's history and abolish capital punishment".
"It ensured that no government anywhere in the country would politically risk imposing the death penalty again," Richards wrote.
Over the next 18 years, capital punishment was abolished under Commonwealth law and in seven states and territories. By 1985, the country was completely abolitionist.
Ryan was hanged at 8am on 3 February 1967, in Melbourne's Pentridge Prison.
He was sentenced to death for the murder of prison officer George Hodson, who was shot during a prison escape by Ryan and Peter Walker in December 1965.
The escape sparked "the biggest police manhunt in the state's history," according to Mike Richards, Ryan's biographer.
Over 17 days on the run, they held up a bank at gunpoint and Walker killed an associate, fearing he would give them up to police.
Richards said there was "widespread and genuine fear [of the two men] in the Melbourne community", accompanied by "saturation media coverage" until they were recaptured.
Ryan, a long-term petty criminal before the prison escape, was given a mandatory death sentence following his conviction for murder.
Defence counsel Dr Philip Opas has always argued Ryan was innocent, pointing to inconsistent witness statements and confusion over whether his gun could be proven to have killed the prison officer.
But his biographer accepted his guilt, and last weekend Richards wrote that Ryan confessed to Pentridge prison governor Ian Grindlay the night before he was hanged.
He said Ryan had fired so Hodson would not recapture Walker, and quoted Ryan as saying: "I did shoot him. But I didn't mean to kill him . . . only to stop him."
Protest at 'political hanging'
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, most death sentences in Victoria were routinely commuted to life imprisonment.
In the summer of 1966-67, lawyers, students and church leaders organised an extraordinary campaign for clemency, but Liberal premier Henry Bolte appeared determined to prove his credentials on crime by insisting on Ryan's execution.
Pleas for mercy from key community leaders were concealed from Bolte's cabinet colleagues, and the premier ignored requests from Dr Opas to address cabinet. Members of Ryan's jury, who had not believed the death sentence would ever be carried out, also petitioned the state governor.
On the morning of the execution, thousands joined protests outside Pentridge Prison.
"Ryan was hanged for political reasons and I don't believe those kind of reasons have changed anywhere in the world where people are executed," Dr Opus said last week. "Bolte said 'nothing transcends politics'."
Former Anglican bishop Tom Frame noted the day before the anniversary that: "At the Victorian state elections held 85 days after the execution, Bolte increased his party's primary vote and parliamentary majority."
Ryan's other legacy: Abolition
The controversy surrounding Ryan's hanging generated widespread revulsion at the use of the death penalty - and its politicisation - and created the momentum for eventual abolition across Australia.
According to biographer Mike Richards, who led student protests in the months before the execution, "it marks the event that prompted state governments still retaining the death penalty to cut the crimson thread running through Australia's history and abolish capital punishment".
"It ensured that no government anywhere in the country would politically risk imposing the death penalty again," Richards wrote.
Over the next 18 years, capital punishment was abolished under Commonwealth law and in seven states and territories. By 1985, the country was completely abolitionist.
Friday, 12 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007
Taiwan's Ministry of Justice has announced that during 2007 it would encourage debate about abolishing the death penalty, including a program of research, seminars and public hearings across the country.
The China Post reported that the ministry would encourage the public to think about and debate the issues, according to Chang Chi-yun, the director of the ministry's Department of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Protection.
Chang said the ministry would encourage members of the public to participate in hearings in northern, central and southern Taiwan during the year.
He said he had also met with members of groups opposed to the death penalty and family members of the victims of crime.
The ministry would also commission research into the issue from the Crime Research Center of the National Chung Cheng University, Chung said.
Gradual move
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty. But he said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
According to a report in the Taipei Times, he said the Ministry of Justice had filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners.
Where the Supreme Court had rejected these appeals, the MOJ had also attempted to stay the executions.
Last month Amnesty International condemned the final approval for the execution of Chong Deshu, issued by the Ministry of Justice just three weeks after the Justice Minister said execution was "not the answer" to crime. (ADP story here.)
Following the approval, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) made an urgent application to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review documents relating to Chung's case.
Related stories:
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
The China Post reported that the ministry would encourage the public to think about and debate the issues, according to Chang Chi-yun, the director of the ministry's Department of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Protection.
Chang said the ministry would encourage members of the public to participate in hearings in northern, central and southern Taiwan during the year.
He said he had also met with members of groups opposed to the death penalty and family members of the victims of crime.
The ministry would also commission research into the issue from the Crime Research Center of the National Chung Cheng University, Chung said.
Gradual move
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty. But he said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
According to a report in the Taipei Times, he said the Ministry of Justice had filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners.
Where the Supreme Court had rejected these appeals, the MOJ had also attempted to stay the executions.
Last month Amnesty International condemned the final approval for the execution of Chong Deshu, issued by the Ministry of Justice just three weeks after the Justice Minister said execution was "not the answer" to crime. (ADP story here.)
Following the approval, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) made an urgent application to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review documents relating to Chung's case.
Related stories:
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Malaysia: Death penalty essay competition
The Malaysian Bar is holding an essay competition on the subject of the death penalty.
Malaysia Star reports the Council's Human Rights Committee has called for essays up to 3,500 words on the topic "Death Penalty: Yes or No?"
Essays must be written in English or Malay.
The competition is open to Malaysians who are "enrolled in the CLP Program, doing their chambering or [are] undergraduates studying in a local public or private university or college".
All essay competition entries should be sent to the Bar Council Secretariat by 31 January, 2007.
For details, call Mohd Rezib 03-2031 3003 ext. 185 or e-mail rezib@malaysianbar.org.my.
In March 2006, the Malaysia Bar's annual general meeting passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
Malaysia Star reports the Council's Human Rights Committee has called for essays up to 3,500 words on the topic "Death Penalty: Yes or No?"
Essays must be written in English or Malay.
The competition is open to Malaysians who are "enrolled in the CLP Program, doing their chambering or [are] undergraduates studying in a local public or private university or college".
All essay competition entries should be sent to the Bar Council Secretariat by 31 January, 2007.
For details, call Mohd Rezib 03-2031 3003 ext. 185 or e-mail rezib@malaysianbar.org.my.
In March 2006, the Malaysia Bar's annual general meeting passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist
A Pakistani political columnist has called for the abolition of the death penalty and an immediate pardon for Mirza Tahir Hussain.
Mushir Anwar, writing in the PakTribune online news service, said Hussain's case "invites civil society's attention to reconsider the issue of death penalty in the light of the ethical problem it poses".
Hussain is set to be hanged on 1 November, at the end of Ramadan, after an unfair trial process and 18 years in jail.
In his column "Abolishing death penalty", Mushir Anwar argued that the way an execution was carried out could be "described as premeditated murder in cold blood on the part of the state".
"The argument that the state is only killing a person who has killed another fellow being is an unethical justification and does not absolve the state of the wrongdoing it commits that in its own eyes is a punishable crime," he wrote.
"Secondly, execution of a killer by the state is an act of revenge which is unbecoming of the state which is supposed to be the noblest and the highest of human institutions. Revenge is universally regarded as mean and ignoble while forgiveness is universally held to be divine."
'Compassion under Islam'
He said abolition of the death penalty was consistent with the principles of Islam, which called for compassion over revenge.
"In Islam, particularly, compassion is held superior to justice. In fact, the predilection of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is for compassion and forgiveness.
"A Muslim society should embody the Prophet’s compassion and Allah’s mercifulness, His benevolence and boundless clemency in its laws."
Mushir Anwar argued that abolition in Pakistan would promote a good image for Islam and set a positive example for other Islamic countries.
"We, who hanker so much after our good image and want Islam to be known as a humane system of life, can give the Muslim world a lead by abolishing the crude and vengeful penalty of death from our statute books altogether," he wrote
"A life term with hard labour in the service of society should be the highest punishment. It gives the criminal the chance to reform and regain the goodness Allah created him with."
Pardon Mirza call
He said Mirza Tahir Hussain “has already paid heavily for his crime [and] should be pardoned by the president without any further delay. Let not a good act wait if it is to be done."
He concluded his column with the words for President Musharaff: "You have the law on your side. Use it."
Related stories:
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system – 12 October, 2006
Pakistan: Hanging delayed, but how long? -- 03 October, 2006
UK pressure over Pakistan hanging -- 01 October, 2006
Mushir Anwar, writing in the PakTribune online news service, said Hussain's case "invites civil society's attention to reconsider the issue of death penalty in the light of the ethical problem it poses".
Hussain is set to be hanged on 1 November, at the end of Ramadan, after an unfair trial process and 18 years in jail.
In his column "Abolishing death penalty", Mushir Anwar argued that the way an execution was carried out could be "described as premeditated murder in cold blood on the part of the state".
"The argument that the state is only killing a person who has killed another fellow being is an unethical justification and does not absolve the state of the wrongdoing it commits that in its own eyes is a punishable crime," he wrote.
"Secondly, execution of a killer by the state is an act of revenge which is unbecoming of the state which is supposed to be the noblest and the highest of human institutions. Revenge is universally regarded as mean and ignoble while forgiveness is universally held to be divine."
'Compassion under Islam'
He said abolition of the death penalty was consistent with the principles of Islam, which called for compassion over revenge.
"In Islam, particularly, compassion is held superior to justice. In fact, the predilection of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is for compassion and forgiveness.
"A Muslim society should embody the Prophet’s compassion and Allah’s mercifulness, His benevolence and boundless clemency in its laws."
Mushir Anwar argued that abolition in Pakistan would promote a good image for Islam and set a positive example for other Islamic countries.
"We, who hanker so much after our good image and want Islam to be known as a humane system of life, can give the Muslim world a lead by abolishing the crude and vengeful penalty of death from our statute books altogether," he wrote
"A life term with hard labour in the service of society should be the highest punishment. It gives the criminal the chance to reform and regain the goodness Allah created him with."
Pardon Mirza call
He said Mirza Tahir Hussain “has already paid heavily for his crime [and] should be pardoned by the president without any further delay. Let not a good act wait if it is to be done."
He concluded his column with the words for President Musharaff: "You have the law on your side. Use it."
Related stories:
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system – 12 October, 2006
Pakistan: Hanging delayed, but how long? -- 03 October, 2006
UK pressure over Pakistan hanging -- 01 October, 2006
Tuesday, 21 February 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition?
The government of Taiwan is working to lower the number of executions carried out each year, according to a report in the Taipei Times.
Justice Minister Morley Shih said the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners. Where the Supreme Court has rejected these appeals, the MOJ has also attempted to stay the executions.
According to official MOJ figures, there were 109 people on death row in Taiwan as of 17 February, with 15 awaiting execution after they were given their final sentence. The death row population in said to be growing, with fewer executions being carried out.
The government is said to be aiming at eventual abolition of the death penalty, but Justice Minister Shih said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
Newspapers have reported cases of mental illness among prisoners on death row, including the suicide of a prisoner last month who reportedly told prison staff that waiting for his execution date was too painful.
Justice Minister Morley Shih said the Taiwanese Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners. Where the Supreme Court has rejected these appeals, the MOJ has also attempted to stay the executions.
According to official MOJ figures, there were 109 people on death row in Taiwan as of 17 February, with 15 awaiting execution after they were given their final sentence. The death row population in said to be growing, with fewer executions being carried out.
The government is said to be aiming at eventual abolition of the death penalty, but Justice Minister Shih said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
Newspapers have reported cases of mental illness among prisoners on death row, including the suicide of a prisoner last month who reportedly told prison staff that waiting for his execution date was too painful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
