Three killers are sent to the gallows
Seven hanged so far this year
By MINORU MATSUTANI
Staff writer
Story from The Japan Times
Three convicted murderers were hanged Tuesday, the Justice Ministry said, bringing the number of executions this year to seven and maintaining the fast pace that saw 15 people sent to the gallows in 2008.
Hanged were a double-killer and two triple-killers, including one who met his victims through a suicide Web site.
It was the third set of execution orders signed by Justice Minister Eisuke Mori, who sent four inmates to the gallows Jan. 29 and two others last October. He assumed the post last September.
"I just conducted my duty as justice minister," Mori said at a news conference following the executions.
Asked why he signed off on the executions at a time of political instability, he said, "I am still the justice minister, even after the Lower House was dissolved.
"Prime Minister Taro Aso dissolved the chamber July 21 and called the election for Aug. 30. Mori, a Lower House member until the dissolution, is expected to be busy preparing for his re-election campaign.
Human rights group Amnesty International Japan blasted the justice minister's action.
"With the Lower House election coming up in August, it is almost certain that Justice Minister Mori, the person with the supreme authority to sign off on executions, will resign. Conducting executions at a time like this is effectively the same as committing the act with nobody assuming responsibility," the group charged in a statement.
Executions have been on the rise in recent years. Mori's immediate predecessor, Okiharu Yasuoka, signed off on three executions last September even though he held the office for only about a month.
The man he replaced, Kunio Hatoyama, the older brother of Democratic Party of Japan President Yukio Hatoyama, ordered 13 executions during his 12-month stint that started in August 2007, the most hangings by a single justice minister since at least 1993.
Mori disclosed the names of the prisoners, a practice started by Hatoyama.
Chen Detong, 41, a Chinese, was convicted of killing two men and a woman and attempting to murder another man and woman with a knife in 1999 because they allegedly violently mistreated him at the apartment they shared in Kawasaki. He was hanged at the Tokyo Detention Center.
Yukio Yamaji, 25, was convicted of raping and slashing a woman and her sister to death and torching their condominium in 2005 in Osaka. He was executed at the Osaka Detention Center.
Hiroshi Maeue, 40, was convicted of killing three people he met via an online bulletin board for those wishing to commit suicide on three separate occasions in Osaka Prefecture from February to June 2005.
In all three cases, he strangled the victims — a female and two males, one of whom was 14 years old. According to a document provided by the Justice Ministry, Maeue became sexually aroused by the sight of people struggling while being strangled.
He was also hanged at the Osaka Detention Center.
Chen's death sentence was finalized July 15, 2006, Yamaji's on May 31, 2007, and Maeue's on July 5, 2007.
The number of death-row inmates now stands at 101.
Amnesty International Japan also said in its statement that more than 70 percent of countries have either abolished the death sentence or have otherwise effectively halted executions.
South Korea has staged no executions in 10 years, while Taiwan has abstained for three years, Amnesty said.
The United States, the only country in the Group of Eight besides Japan that has capital punishment on the books, has seen states carrying out fewer executions, while Islamic countries, generally considered disposed to the death penalty, also are becoming more circumspect about executions, the group said.
Until 2007, executions in China, which puts far more people to death than any other country, were trending down. However, in 2008 the figure jumped to at least 1,718 from some 470 the year before, the group said, adding, however, that since Beijing last year changed the way executions are counted, it cannot say definitively if they are on the rise or not.
Nonetheless, Japan is one of the few countries where executions are on the rise, it said.
Last Dec. 18 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a halt in executions.
Related stories:
Japan: New year, more hangings -- 29 January 2009
Japan may execute before year ends -- 16 December 2008
Japan: Record toll with new hangings -- 28 October 2008
Japan: New minister faces next hanging -- 14 October 2008
Japan: New minister sends three to death -- 12 September 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April 2008
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August 2006
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
China: Call for fair investigation in Uyghur region
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) issued this statement in English and Chinese on 21 July 2009, following the recent unrest in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Chinese officials had reportedly threatened to use the death penalty against demonstrators convicted of involvement in violent clashes.
WCADP 對東土耳其斯坦（新疆維吾爾自治區）情勢的聲明
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) Statement on the recent situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
針對東土耳其斯坦（新疆）近來的情勢，世界反死刑聯盟（WCADP）認為在這次事件尚未完全釐清前，中國政府官員就威脅要使用死刑或最嚴厲的極刑，不但突顯中國缺乏法治，且對緩和維漢衝突完全沒有幫助，也違反中國已簽署之相關國際條約。
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) is seriously alarmed by the threat of death sentences made by Chinese officials in Urumqi following recent unrest in Urumqi. This threat by the Chinese officials not only indicates the lack of rule of law in China but is also detrimental to the alleviation of tension between Han Chinese and Uyghur. It also violates the core values and spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that China has signed and repeatedly stated its intention to ratify as well as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) which China has ratified.
因此，世界反死刑聯盟發表聲明如下：
Therefore, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), representing member organizations, urges:
1.們呼籲聯合國人權理事會發起真相發現任務團，中國政府對外宣稱此為刑事犯罪事件，就應該接受這個公平的調查，並允許外國媒體自由進行採訪。
1. The initiation of an open, independent, transparent, fair and impartial investigation following the recent reports of violence on the part of both demonstrators and security forces. The Chinese authorities should also ensure unconditional media access in the Region;
2.同時，我們認為，所有參與騷亂事件的嫌疑人，都應該要接受合理、公平的調查以及審判；每位嫌疑人應該要獨立的選任辯護人；每位辯護人都能自主行使律師職權、不受政府的威脅。
2. All the suspects arrested in this incident be guaranteed fair and open investigation and trial, defence lawyers be independent of government pressure, and all defence lawyers be able to freely carry out their role as defence lawyers;
3.中國政府簽署了國際公民與政治權利公約，禁止酷刑和其他殘忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰公約，我們也再次申明生命權是基本人權,而死刑不但是殘酷不人道的懲罰，也是一種對於弱勢族群以及政治異議者的歧視，中國政府不應以死刑作為統治、打壓異己的工具；中國政府官員威脅要用死刑來嚴懲騷亂事件的參與者，是錯誤的行為。世界反死刑聯盟反對使用死刑。
3. Right to life is one of the basic human rights. The death penalty is not only a cruel and inhuman punishment but is also utilized as a means of suppressing minorities and dissidents. The Chinese government should act in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) instead of using death penalty as means of governance and suppressing the dissidents. The threat of death penalty from the Chinese officials concerning those arrested in this incident is opposed by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Created in Rome in 2002, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty brings together 96 bar associations, trade unions, local governments and non-governmental organizations. It aims at strengthening the international dimension of the fight against the death penalty and at contributing to put an end to death sentences and executions.
WCADP 對東土耳其斯坦（新疆維吾爾自治區）情勢的聲明
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) Statement on the recent situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
針對東土耳其斯坦（新疆）近來的情勢，世界反死刑聯盟（WCADP）認為在這次事件尚未完全釐清前，中國政府官員就威脅要使用死刑或最嚴厲的極刑，不但突顯中國缺乏法治，且對緩和維漢衝突完全沒有幫助，也違反中國已簽署之相關國際條約。
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) is seriously alarmed by the threat of death sentences made by Chinese officials in Urumqi following recent unrest in Urumqi. This threat by the Chinese officials not only indicates the lack of rule of law in China but is also detrimental to the alleviation of tension between Han Chinese and Uyghur. It also violates the core values and spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that China has signed and repeatedly stated its intention to ratify as well as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) which China has ratified.
因此，世界反死刑聯盟發表聲明如下：
Therefore, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), representing member organizations, urges:
1.們呼籲聯合國人權理事會發起真相發現任務團，中國政府對外宣稱此為刑事犯罪事件，就應該接受這個公平的調查，並允許外國媒體自由進行採訪。
1. The initiation of an open, independent, transparent, fair and impartial investigation following the recent reports of violence on the part of both demonstrators and security forces. The Chinese authorities should also ensure unconditional media access in the Region;
2.同時，我們認為，所有參與騷亂事件的嫌疑人，都應該要接受合理、公平的調查以及審判；每位嫌疑人應該要獨立的選任辯護人；每位辯護人都能自主行使律師職權、不受政府的威脅。
2. All the suspects arrested in this incident be guaranteed fair and open investigation and trial, defence lawyers be independent of government pressure, and all defence lawyers be able to freely carry out their role as defence lawyers;
3.中國政府簽署了國際公民與政治權利公約，禁止酷刑和其他殘忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或處罰公約，我們也再次申明生命權是基本人權,而死刑不但是殘酷不人道的懲罰，也是一種對於弱勢族群以及政治異議者的歧視，中國政府不應以死刑作為統治、打壓異己的工具；中國政府官員威脅要用死刑來嚴懲騷亂事件的參與者，是錯誤的行為。世界反死刑聯盟反對使用死刑。
3. Right to life is one of the basic human rights. The death penalty is not only a cruel and inhuman punishment but is also utilized as a means of suppressing minorities and dissidents. The Chinese government should act in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) instead of using death penalty as means of governance and suppressing the dissidents. The threat of death penalty from the Chinese officials concerning those arrested in this incident is opposed by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Created in Rome in 2002, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty brings together 96 bar associations, trade unions, local governments and non-governmental organizations. It aims at strengthening the international dimension of the fight against the death penalty and at contributing to put an end to death sentences and executions.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Papua New Guinea must not restart executions
An open letter from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
14 July 2009
The Papua New Guinea government should abolish the death penalty instead of putting it back into effect, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a joint letter this week.
In the letter to Dr. Allan Marat, justice minister and attorney general, the two human rights organizations criticized statements by Papua New Guinea government officials calling for steps that would enable it to carry out executions.
Recent violent crimes, including the alleged killings of four children by their mother, led to statements by officials that they were considering reinstating executions. Marat told journalists recently that his office was drawing up regulations necessary to conduct executions.
Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite Parliament's reintroduction of the death penalty for wilful murder in 1991.
"The death penalty is a violation of the right to life and Papua New Guinea would damage its credibility by re introducing it," said Amnesty International's Pacific researcher Apolosi Bose.
"Instead, Papua New Guinea should uphold the guarantees of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment found in its own constitution and international legal commitments."
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights.
The organizations have called on Papua New Guinea to abolish the death penalty and to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The organizations also called on the government to strengthen its judicial system so that those convicted of crimes face just penalties that comply with international standards.
"Restarting executions would be a huge step backward for Papua New Guinea that would move the country away from the prevailing trend of world opinion and practice," said Zama Coursen-Neff, deputy director of the Children’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch.
"Papua New Guinea should strengthen its criminal justice system, but there's no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crimes more than other punishments."
The death penalty has been legally abolished by 94 countries, and only a small minority of countries – 25 in 2008 – continues to carry out executions.
Open letter to Papua New Guinea Minister of Justice
Letter urging the Minister of Justice to abolish death penalty
Hon. Dr. Allan Marat
Minister of Justice
Department of Justice
Government of Papua New Guinea
Port Moresby
Dear Minister Marat:
We write to express concern over your recent statements in Parliament suggesting that the death penalty might be soon implemented for the first time since Papua New Guinea gained self-governance and independence and that your office may develop regulations to do so. Not only would this be a highly regressive measure for justice and human rights within Papua New Guinea, it would also be in stark contrast to the prevailing trend of world opinion and practice.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of fundamental rights-the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are international, nongovernmental organizations that monitor the compliance of countries with their obligations under international human rights law. Both have Special Consultative Status at the United Nations, and regularly report on human rights conditions in countries around the world and actively promote legislative and policy reform worldwide to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law.
We acknowledge that Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite Parliament's 1991 reintroduction of the death penalty for willful murder. We welcome Papua New Guinea's accession in 2008 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an important step towards guaranteeing respect for fundamental human rights in the country. We urge Papua New Guinea to continue in this direction by abolishing the death penalty and ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which abolishes the death penalty. Such a move would allow Papua New Guinea to join the community of 94 countries that have already legally abolished this cruel and inhuman practice.
We understand that cases such as the recent murder of four children by their mother have caused immense shock and sadness throughout the country. And we note that the pressure for the state to act decisively against such crimes is immense. However, simply because a person may have killed brutally does not mean that the state should do the same. It is the responsibility of the state to respect fundamental human rights in its delivery of justice.
There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent surveys of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations (UN) in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." On December 18, 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted by a wide margin a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution states that "there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty's deterrent value," and that the "use of the death penalty undermines human dignity."
The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when full due process of law is respected, innocent persons are sometimes executed. The risk of error means that the death penalty inevitably claims the lives of those later found to be innocent, as has been persistently demonstrated. Executions are inevitably carried out in an arbitrary manner, inflicted primarily on the most vulnerable-the poor and the mentally ill.
We also note that as of late 2008, a boy under the age of 18 was imprisoned under a sentence of death. The prohibition on the death penalty for crimes committed by juvenile offenders is well established in international treaty and customary law. The overwhelming majority of states comply with this standard. Both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit capital punishment for persons under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. In 1994 the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it considered the prohibition against capital punishment for children to be part of international customary law.
Currently, Papua New Guinea's criminal code prescribes hanging as the method of execution, and your recent statements in parliament also reference lethal injection as a possible alternative. The death penalty always constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment whatever the method of execution.
As Minister of Justice, you play a critical role in bringing justice for victims of crime as well as those accused of committing crimes. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International encourage you to use your position as Minister of Justice to strengthen the judicial system so that perpetrators of crimes face just penalties that are in compliance with international standards. In addition, we urge you to use your influence with the government to promote abolishment of the death penalty in Papua New Guinea and ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns, and we look forward to receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience
Yours sincerely,
Zama Coursen-Neff
Deputy Director
Children's Rights Division
Human Rights Watch
Donna Guest
Deputy Programme Director
Asia Pacific Programme
Amnesty International
cc. Hon. Sam Abal
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Related stories:
Papua New Guinea: 'Waiting for' execution guidelines -- 8 July 2009
Papua New Guinea: Ending its isolation? -- 26 April 2006
14 July 2009
The Papua New Guinea government should abolish the death penalty instead of putting it back into effect, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a joint letter this week.
In the letter to Dr. Allan Marat, justice minister and attorney general, the two human rights organizations criticized statements by Papua New Guinea government officials calling for steps that would enable it to carry out executions.
Recent violent crimes, including the alleged killings of four children by their mother, led to statements by officials that they were considering reinstating executions. Marat told journalists recently that his office was drawing up regulations necessary to conduct executions.
Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite Parliament's reintroduction of the death penalty for wilful murder in 1991.
"The death penalty is a violation of the right to life and Papua New Guinea would damage its credibility by re introducing it," said Amnesty International's Pacific researcher Apolosi Bose.
"Instead, Papua New Guinea should uphold the guarantees of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment found in its own constitution and international legal commitments."
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights.
The organizations have called on Papua New Guinea to abolish the death penalty and to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The organizations also called on the government to strengthen its judicial system so that those convicted of crimes face just penalties that comply with international standards.
"Restarting executions would be a huge step backward for Papua New Guinea that would move the country away from the prevailing trend of world opinion and practice," said Zama Coursen-Neff, deputy director of the Children’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch.
"Papua New Guinea should strengthen its criminal justice system, but there's no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crimes more than other punishments."
The death penalty has been legally abolished by 94 countries, and only a small minority of countries – 25 in 2008 – continues to carry out executions.
Open letter to Papua New Guinea Minister of Justice
Letter urging the Minister of Justice to abolish death penalty
Hon. Dr. Allan Marat
Minister of Justice
Department of Justice
Government of Papua New Guinea
Port Moresby
Dear Minister Marat:
We write to express concern over your recent statements in Parliament suggesting that the death penalty might be soon implemented for the first time since Papua New Guinea gained self-governance and independence and that your office may develop regulations to do so. Not only would this be a highly regressive measure for justice and human rights within Papua New Guinea, it would also be in stark contrast to the prevailing trend of world opinion and practice.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of fundamental rights-the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are international, nongovernmental organizations that monitor the compliance of countries with their obligations under international human rights law. Both have Special Consultative Status at the United Nations, and regularly report on human rights conditions in countries around the world and actively promote legislative and policy reform worldwide to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law.
We acknowledge that Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite Parliament's 1991 reintroduction of the death penalty for willful murder. We welcome Papua New Guinea's accession in 2008 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an important step towards guaranteeing respect for fundamental human rights in the country. We urge Papua New Guinea to continue in this direction by abolishing the death penalty and ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which abolishes the death penalty. Such a move would allow Papua New Guinea to join the community of 94 countries that have already legally abolished this cruel and inhuman practice.
We understand that cases such as the recent murder of four children by their mother have caused immense shock and sadness throughout the country. And we note that the pressure for the state to act decisively against such crimes is immense. However, simply because a person may have killed brutally does not mean that the state should do the same. It is the responsibility of the state to respect fundamental human rights in its delivery of justice.
There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent surveys of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations (UN) in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." On December 18, 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted by a wide margin a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution states that "there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty's deterrent value," and that the "use of the death penalty undermines human dignity."
The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when full due process of law is respected, innocent persons are sometimes executed. The risk of error means that the death penalty inevitably claims the lives of those later found to be innocent, as has been persistently demonstrated. Executions are inevitably carried out in an arbitrary manner, inflicted primarily on the most vulnerable-the poor and the mentally ill.
We also note that as of late 2008, a boy under the age of 18 was imprisoned under a sentence of death. The prohibition on the death penalty for crimes committed by juvenile offenders is well established in international treaty and customary law. The overwhelming majority of states comply with this standard. Both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit capital punishment for persons under the age of 18 at the time of the offense. In 1994 the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it considered the prohibition against capital punishment for children to be part of international customary law.
Currently, Papua New Guinea's criminal code prescribes hanging as the method of execution, and your recent statements in parliament also reference lethal injection as a possible alternative. The death penalty always constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment whatever the method of execution.
As Minister of Justice, you play a critical role in bringing justice for victims of crime as well as those accused of committing crimes. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International encourage you to use your position as Minister of Justice to strengthen the judicial system so that perpetrators of crimes face just penalties that are in compliance with international standards. In addition, we urge you to use your influence with the government to promote abolishment of the death penalty in Papua New Guinea and ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns, and we look forward to receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience
Yours sincerely,
Zama Coursen-Neff
Deputy Director
Children's Rights Division
Human Rights Watch
Donna Guest
Deputy Programme Director
Asia Pacific Programme
Amnesty International
cc. Hon. Sam Abal
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Related stories:
Papua New Guinea: 'Waiting for' execution guidelines -- 8 July 2009
Papua New Guinea: Ending its isolation? -- 26 April 2006
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Top Indian court upholds hangings
From BBC News
India's Supreme Court has rejected a petition to replace hanging with lethal injection as the country's sole method of execution.
The court said there was no evidence to suggest that hanging was less painful.
Activist Ashok Kumar Walia had argued that hanging was a "cruel and painful" method of execution and should be replaced by lethal injection.
Indian authorities say the death penalty is rarely carried out and is usually reserved for serious cases.
There has been just one execution - in 2004 - in India in the past 10 years.
"How do you know that hanging causes pain? And how do you know that injecting the condemned prisoner with a lethal drug would not cause pain?" Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan was quoted by the Times of India newspaper as saying.
Justice Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam said that experts believe that hanging - meant to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord - caused instant death.
"Many countries, still practising death penalty, have various methods of execution - death squad which guns down a condemned prisoner from close range, hanging by the neck, electric chair and by injecting a lethal drug.
"In India, we have a very, very liberal sentencing system based on a humane law. The courts in the rarest of the rare cases award death sentence," the newspaper quoted the judges as saying.
Only in the most horrific or politically sensitive cases is the death penalty awarded.
The court suggested that Mr Walia should campaign for the outright abolition of capital punishment in India.
A 1983 ruling by the Supreme Court stated that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of rare cases".
Page last updated at 12:29 GMT, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 13:29 UK
Related stories:
India: "Abusive lottery must be abolished" -- 30 May 2008
India's Supreme Court has rejected a petition to replace hanging with lethal injection as the country's sole method of execution.
The court said there was no evidence to suggest that hanging was less painful.
Activist Ashok Kumar Walia had argued that hanging was a "cruel and painful" method of execution and should be replaced by lethal injection.
Indian authorities say the death penalty is rarely carried out and is usually reserved for serious cases.
There has been just one execution - in 2004 - in India in the past 10 years.
"How do you know that hanging causes pain? And how do you know that injecting the condemned prisoner with a lethal drug would not cause pain?" Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan was quoted by the Times of India newspaper as saying.
Justice Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam said that experts believe that hanging - meant to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord - caused instant death.
"Many countries, still practising death penalty, have various methods of execution - death squad which guns down a condemned prisoner from close range, hanging by the neck, electric chair and by injecting a lethal drug.
"In India, we have a very, very liberal sentencing system based on a humane law. The courts in the rarest of the rare cases award death sentence," the newspaper quoted the judges as saying.
Only in the most horrific or politically sensitive cases is the death penalty awarded.
The court suggested that Mr Walia should campaign for the outright abolition of capital punishment in India.
A 1983 ruling by the Supreme Court stated that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of rare cases".
Page last updated at 12:29 GMT, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 13:29 UK
Related stories:
India: "Abusive lottery must be abolished" -- 30 May 2008
Papua New Guinea: 'Waiting for' execution guidelines
By PNG correspondent Liam Fox
From ABC Australia
Papua New Guinea's attorney-general says he is waiting for guidelines to be drawn up to allow the enforcement of the death penalty.
PNG's criminal code allows for people to be sentenced to death by hanging but the penalty has never been carried out.
There have been several high-profile murders recently and in parliament today attorney-general Alan Marat was asked why the penalty has never been enforced.
He says there are no regulations governing how an execution would be conducted and he is waiting for his department to draw them up.
"I want to take that regulation to cabinet for endorsement but it's just not ready, but as soon as it's ready maybe we start implementing," he said.
Dr Marat says his department is also looking at whether executions could be carried out by lethal injection.
Related stories:
Papua New Guinea: Ending its isolation? -- 26 April 2006
From ABC Australia
Papua New Guinea's attorney-general says he is waiting for guidelines to be drawn up to allow the enforcement of the death penalty.
PNG's criminal code allows for people to be sentenced to death by hanging but the penalty has never been carried out.
There have been several high-profile murders recently and in parliament today attorney-general Alan Marat was asked why the penalty has never been enforced.
He says there are no regulations governing how an execution would be conducted and he is waiting for his department to draw them up.
"I want to take that regulation to cabinet for endorsement but it's just not ready, but as soon as it's ready maybe we start implementing," he said.
Dr Marat says his department is also looking at whether executions could be carried out by lethal injection.
Related stories:
Papua New Guinea: Ending its isolation? -- 26 April 2006
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Australia: Canberra to act on death penalty ban
From The Age:
Canberra to act on death penalty ban
Cynthia Banham
THE Federal Government has written to the states, telling them of its plans to introduce laws banning them from ever reintroducing the death penalty, whether they like it or not.
While all states have abolished the death penalty, there is nothing preventing a government from bringing it back.
The Age has a copy of a letter sent from Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland to his state counterparts on June 16, informing them "of the Commonwealth Government's intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the application of the death penalty throughout Australia".
The language of the letter is significant, as it indicates the Federal Government has opted to use the external affairs power in the constitution to put the prohibition in place.
This is instead of asking the states to refer their powers to the Commonwealth to enable it to pass the laws banning the reintroduction of the death penalty — an option that is seen as less watertight by the Federal Government because usually states only refer their powers for a limited period of time.
It is understood the Federal Government has legal advice that under the external affairs power and international treaties signed by Australia, including the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is able enact the laws and so intends to take this path.
The Federal Opposition's preference will be to not rely on the external affairs power.
The Federal Government has given the states until Monday to respond to its letter and said the formal prohibition would "further demonstrate our nation's commitment to the worldwide abolitionist movement".
"It would complement our co-sponsorship of resolutions calling for a moratorium on the death penalty in the United Nations General Assembly and safeguard the fulfilment of our obligation under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to abolish the death penalty within Australia's jurisdiction," the letter said.
Three Australians are on death row in Indonesia — Scott Rush, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, who are part of the so-called "Bali Nine".
The Federal Government is keen to send a strong message internationally about Australia's opposition to the death penalty.
There is cross-party support for the Federal Parliament to ban states from reviving the death penalty. A bipartisan working group against the death penalty, including Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, was established late last year.
The bill to ban the reintroduction of the death penalty is likely to be introduced into Parliament in spring. It will probably form part of the same bill criminalising torture as a federal offence.
The Federal Government has already consulted with the states over its decision to make torture a Commonwealth offence and to ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which involves allowing international inspections of places of detention.
It is understood that the West Australian Liberal Government is the only state to have raised concerns over the issue.
Canberra to act on death penalty ban
Cynthia Banham
THE Federal Government has written to the states, telling them of its plans to introduce laws banning them from ever reintroducing the death penalty, whether they like it or not.
While all states have abolished the death penalty, there is nothing preventing a government from bringing it back.
The Age has a copy of a letter sent from Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland to his state counterparts on June 16, informing them "of the Commonwealth Government's intention to introduce legislation to prohibit the application of the death penalty throughout Australia".
The language of the letter is significant, as it indicates the Federal Government has opted to use the external affairs power in the constitution to put the prohibition in place.
This is instead of asking the states to refer their powers to the Commonwealth to enable it to pass the laws banning the reintroduction of the death penalty — an option that is seen as less watertight by the Federal Government because usually states only refer their powers for a limited period of time.
It is understood the Federal Government has legal advice that under the external affairs power and international treaties signed by Australia, including the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is able enact the laws and so intends to take this path.
The Federal Opposition's preference will be to not rely on the external affairs power.
The Federal Government has given the states until Monday to respond to its letter and said the formal prohibition would "further demonstrate our nation's commitment to the worldwide abolitionist movement".
"It would complement our co-sponsorship of resolutions calling for a moratorium on the death penalty in the United Nations General Assembly and safeguard the fulfilment of our obligation under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to abolish the death penalty within Australia's jurisdiction," the letter said.
Three Australians are on death row in Indonesia — Scott Rush, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, who are part of the so-called "Bali Nine".
The Federal Government is keen to send a strong message internationally about Australia's opposition to the death penalty.
There is cross-party support for the Federal Parliament to ban states from reviving the death penalty. A bipartisan working group against the death penalty, including Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, was established late last year.
The bill to ban the reintroduction of the death penalty is likely to be introduced into Parliament in spring. It will probably form part of the same bill criminalising torture as a federal offence.
The Federal Government has already consulted with the states over its decision to make torture a Commonwealth offence and to ratify the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which involves allowing international inspections of places of detention.
It is understood that the West Australian Liberal Government is the only state to have raised concerns over the issue.
Monday, 29 June 2009
Pakistan: President Zardari should commute death sentences
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
19 June 2009
Pakistan: President Zardari should commute death sentences on Benazir Bhutto’s birthday
On 21 June 2008, marking the birthday of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani proposed to the National Assembly that all death sentences in Pakistan should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Amnesty International calls on the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari —Benazir Bhutto’s widower—to mark his wife’s birthday and the one-year anniversary of Prime Minister Gilani’s proposal by immediately commuting all death sentences to terms of imprisonment. The President holds the Constitutional authority to commute death sentences without further delay.
Amnesty international is encouraged by the decreasing number of death sentences and executions in Pakistan in 2008. But Pakistan continues to apply the death penalty and some 7,500 prisoners remain on death row. In 2008, an estimated 236 people were sentenced to death, 36 of them were executed, including 16 after the Prime Minister's June statement.
These executions, along with the November 2008 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance--which provides for the death sentence when “the offence of cyber terrorism” causes death--defy the spirit of Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and without exception, believing it to be the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and a violation of the right to life, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. The death penalty legitimises an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.
Amnesty International’s research shows that lower courts in Pakistan frequently impose the death sentence for murder in the expectation that the sentence will not be carried out as families are likely to reach a compromise, and forgive the alleged perpetrator, leading to his or her release in accordance with the provisions for qisas in Pakistani law. Sometimes negotiations over compensation continue while the convict stands ready to be hanged.
The law on murder and physical injury based upon the principles of qisas and diyat (retribution and “blood money” in the form of financial compensation) are in practice discriminatory: the rich and powerful usually have the means to secure the pardon of the victim’s family and thereby obtain their release, whereas the poor and powerless are often executed.
The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has further developed this point by stating: “where the private diyah pardon stands alone and when it relates to the death penalty, it is almost certain to lead to significant violations of the right to due process in situations where a pardon is not granted. To the extent that the procedure does not provide for a final judgement by a court of law, or for the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence from the State authorities, the requirements of international law will be violated. Where the diyah pardon is available it must be supplemented by a separate, public system for seeking an official pardon or commutation.” (See report of the Special Rapporteur to the UN General Assembly, A/61/311, paragraph 61.)
Amnesty International’s concern about the large number of death sentences in Pakistan is heightened by the fact that many appear to be imposed in unfair trials characterised by lack of access to legal counsel and acceptance of evidence inadmissible under international law, including by special courts. Members of religious minorities seem disproportionately vulnerable to discrimination and unfair and erroneous convictions in capital cases.
On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 62/149 on “Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty”. The resolution was adopted by 104 votes in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions. Pakistan’s previous government under President Pervez Musharraf voted against the resolution. A second resolution 63/168 on the moratorium was adopted a year later in December with an even greater margin of support. Amnesty International was disappointed that Pakistan voted against the resolution despite Prime Minister Gilani’s promise regarding commutation of death penalties on 21 June 2008.
We urge the President of Pakistan to follow through on Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal and the example set by former Prime Minister, the late Benazir Bhutto, who shortly after being elected Prime Minister in 1988 commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment.
Momentum is gathering across the world to end capital punishment. As of today, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, including Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Nepal. Pakistan sent a positive signal by acceding to three human rights treaties in April last year.
Amnesty International now call upon Pakistan President to seize the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, and one year on from the commutation proposal and to commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment as a first step to abolition of the death penalty.
PUBLIC STATEMENT
19 June 2009
Pakistan: President Zardari should commute death sentences on Benazir Bhutto’s birthday
On 21 June 2008, marking the birthday of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani proposed to the National Assembly that all death sentences in Pakistan should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Amnesty International calls on the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari —Benazir Bhutto’s widower—to mark his wife’s birthday and the one-year anniversary of Prime Minister Gilani’s proposal by immediately commuting all death sentences to terms of imprisonment. The President holds the Constitutional authority to commute death sentences without further delay.
Amnesty international is encouraged by the decreasing number of death sentences and executions in Pakistan in 2008. But Pakistan continues to apply the death penalty and some 7,500 prisoners remain on death row. In 2008, an estimated 236 people were sentenced to death, 36 of them were executed, including 16 after the Prime Minister's June statement.
These executions, along with the November 2008 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance--which provides for the death sentence when “the offence of cyber terrorism” causes death--defy the spirit of Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and without exception, believing it to be the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and a violation of the right to life, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. The death penalty legitimises an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.
Amnesty International’s research shows that lower courts in Pakistan frequently impose the death sentence for murder in the expectation that the sentence will not be carried out as families are likely to reach a compromise, and forgive the alleged perpetrator, leading to his or her release in accordance with the provisions for qisas in Pakistani law. Sometimes negotiations over compensation continue while the convict stands ready to be hanged.
The law on murder and physical injury based upon the principles of qisas and diyat (retribution and “blood money” in the form of financial compensation) are in practice discriminatory: the rich and powerful usually have the means to secure the pardon of the victim’s family and thereby obtain their release, whereas the poor and powerless are often executed.
The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has further developed this point by stating: “where the private diyah pardon stands alone and when it relates to the death penalty, it is almost certain to lead to significant violations of the right to due process in situations where a pardon is not granted. To the extent that the procedure does not provide for a final judgement by a court of law, or for the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence from the State authorities, the requirements of international law will be violated. Where the diyah pardon is available it must be supplemented by a separate, public system for seeking an official pardon or commutation.” (See report of the Special Rapporteur to the UN General Assembly, A/61/311, paragraph 61.)
Amnesty International’s concern about the large number of death sentences in Pakistan is heightened by the fact that many appear to be imposed in unfair trials characterised by lack of access to legal counsel and acceptance of evidence inadmissible under international law, including by special courts. Members of religious minorities seem disproportionately vulnerable to discrimination and unfair and erroneous convictions in capital cases.
On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 62/149 on “Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty”. The resolution was adopted by 104 votes in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions. Pakistan’s previous government under President Pervez Musharraf voted against the resolution. A second resolution 63/168 on the moratorium was adopted a year later in December with an even greater margin of support. Amnesty International was disappointed that Pakistan voted against the resolution despite Prime Minister Gilani’s promise regarding commutation of death penalties on 21 June 2008.
We urge the President of Pakistan to follow through on Prime Minister Gilani’s commutation proposal and the example set by former Prime Minister, the late Benazir Bhutto, who shortly after being elected Prime Minister in 1988 commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment.
Momentum is gathering across the world to end capital punishment. As of today, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, including Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Nepal. Pakistan sent a positive signal by acceding to three human rights treaties in April last year.
Amnesty International now call upon Pakistan President to seize the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, and one year on from the commutation proposal and to commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment as a first step to abolition of the death penalty.
Friday, 26 June 2009
End the Death Penalty for Drug-Related Offences
Joint Statement by The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), of which Amnesty International is a member, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association
As the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking approaches on 26 June, the Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), of which Amnesty International is a member, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) call upon governments in Asia to cease applying the death penalty for drug-related offences.
There is a clear, long-standing and worldwide move toward restriction or abolition of the death penalty. Only a small minority of countries continue to implement the death penalty: in 2008, 25 countries carried out executions. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights- the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Sixteen countries in Asia apply the death penalty for drug-related offences. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed upon those convicted of drug offences. ADPAN, HRW, and IHRA express particular concern that China, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to execute individuals for drug offences – and that some countries, such as China since the early 1990s, and Indonesia in 2008, have marked the occasion of June 26 with such executions.
Despite the executions in Asia there is no clear evidence of a decline in drug-trafficking that could be attributed to the threat or use of the death penalty. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime in general more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations (UN) in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."
UN human rights mechanisms – including the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the UN Human Rights Committee -- have concluded that the death penalty for drug offences fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime”, under which the death penalty is allowed only as an “exceptional measure” where “there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life” (UN Doc, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007, para 53). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have likewise expressed grave concerns about the application of the death penalty for drug offences.
Death sentences are often handed down after unfair legal processes, a problem made worse by laws, policies or practices regulating drug offences in some Asian countries. Mandatory death sentences are applied for certain drug offences in Brunei, India, Laos, Singapore and Malaysia, leaving a judge with no discretion over the sentence for defendants found guilty. Mandatory death sentences violate international standards on fair trials. Individualised sentencing is required to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life. Singapore, which has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, as well as Malaysia, continue to hand down death sentences to individuals alleged to be drug traffickers after trials that presume guilt, and in which death sentences are mandatory.
Confessions that have been coerced sometimes form the basis of guilty verdicts, death sentences and executions. Competent legal assistance is unavailable to many defendants, including defendants facing drugs-related charges, leaving many with little capacity to mount a defence at any stage of the proceedings.
Draconian penalties for drug offences, including the death penalty, hinder public health programmes that reduce the harm drugs may cause to individual drug users, their loved ones, communities and states. China, Malaysia and Viet Nam have recently stepped up their harm reduction programmes to reduce HIV, hepatitis C and other drug-related health and social harms. However, excessive punishments and overly repressive drug law enforcement have been shown time and again to drive target groups away from such services. The death penalty therefore not only violates the right to life of those condemned, but is actually counterproductive to efforts to reduce the harm caused by drugs.
On the occasion of UN Anti-Drugs Day 2009 ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association appeal to Asian governments to:
• Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on “moratorium on the use of the death penalty”;
• Commute all death sentences including for drug offences;
• Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the death penalty for drugs offences;
• Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;
• Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the administration of justice in death penalty cases;
• Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.
Ends.
As the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking approaches on 26 June, the Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), of which Amnesty International is a member, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) call upon governments in Asia to cease applying the death penalty for drug-related offences.
There is a clear, long-standing and worldwide move toward restriction or abolition of the death penalty. Only a small minority of countries continue to implement the death penalty: in 2008, 25 countries carried out executions. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights- the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
Sixteen countries in Asia apply the death penalty for drug-related offences. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed upon those convicted of drug offences. ADPAN, HRW, and IHRA express particular concern that China, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to execute individuals for drug offences – and that some countries, such as China since the early 1990s, and Indonesia in 2008, have marked the occasion of June 26 with such executions.
Despite the executions in Asia there is no clear evidence of a decline in drug-trafficking that could be attributed to the threat or use of the death penalty. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime in general more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations (UN) in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."
UN human rights mechanisms – including the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the UN Human Rights Committee -- have concluded that the death penalty for drug offences fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime”, under which the death penalty is allowed only as an “exceptional measure” where “there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life” (UN Doc, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007, para 53). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have likewise expressed grave concerns about the application of the death penalty for drug offences.
Death sentences are often handed down after unfair legal processes, a problem made worse by laws, policies or practices regulating drug offences in some Asian countries. Mandatory death sentences are applied for certain drug offences in Brunei, India, Laos, Singapore and Malaysia, leaving a judge with no discretion over the sentence for defendants found guilty. Mandatory death sentences violate international standards on fair trials. Individualised sentencing is required to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life. Singapore, which has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, as well as Malaysia, continue to hand down death sentences to individuals alleged to be drug traffickers after trials that presume guilt, and in which death sentences are mandatory.
Confessions that have been coerced sometimes form the basis of guilty verdicts, death sentences and executions. Competent legal assistance is unavailable to many defendants, including defendants facing drugs-related charges, leaving many with little capacity to mount a defence at any stage of the proceedings.
Draconian penalties for drug offences, including the death penalty, hinder public health programmes that reduce the harm drugs may cause to individual drug users, their loved ones, communities and states. China, Malaysia and Viet Nam have recently stepped up their harm reduction programmes to reduce HIV, hepatitis C and other drug-related health and social harms. However, excessive punishments and overly repressive drug law enforcement have been shown time and again to drive target groups away from such services. The death penalty therefore not only violates the right to life of those condemned, but is actually counterproductive to efforts to reduce the harm caused by drugs.
On the occasion of UN Anti-Drugs Day 2009 ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association appeal to Asian governments to:
• Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on “moratorium on the use of the death penalty”;
• Commute all death sentences including for drug offences;
• Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the death penalty for drugs offences;
• Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;
• Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the administration of justice in death penalty cases;
• Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.
Ends.
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, 24 May 2009
Indonesia: Activists condemn plan to limit appeals
Groups Denounce AGO Plan to Cap Execution Appeals
By Heru Andriyanto
The Jakarta Globe
22 May, 2009
Human rights groups are blasting an Attorney General's Office plan to limit the window of time inmates facing the firing squad would be allowed to lodge a final case review - to 30 days. Under Indonesian law, condemned inmates may request a case review once the Supreme Court rejects their appeal, but they must present new evidence
"It's very unlikely inmates could secure new evidence in only 30 days," said Papang Hidayat, head of research at the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) on Thursday.
"In other words, more and more inmates will be put to death if [the AGO proposal] becomes law."
He said Kontras remains firm in its position that capital punishment should be outlawed. Last year, the state executed 10 inmates convicted of terrorism, drug trafficking and murder. There are 111 inmates currently on death row.
The Supreme Court this year ruled that the AGO could unilaterally set a deadline for case review requests in capital punishment cases, citing as precedent that in civil cases, a review deadline stands at 180 days.
But Abdul Hakim Ritonga, an AGO deputy in charge of judicial killings, said last week that 180 days was too long, and proposed 30 days instead. Abdul leads a five-member AGO team tasked with setting up a new appeals deadline.
Rusdi Marpaung with the human rights group Imparsial said the proposal reflected the AGO’s view that executions were "business as usual."
"I cannot understand why the AGO feels so easy in planning more executions. In our view, the death sentence is against the 1945 Constitution and accordingly must be abolished," Rusdi said.
While abolishing capital punishment appears to be an uphill battle, particularly during an election year, Papang suggested that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, which has executed 19 inmates since 2004, could impose a moratorium on death sentences.
"The most important thing to do is to mend the poor judicial system that is unable to deliver fair justice to death row inmates,” Papang said.
"Just take a look at the fact that many foreign inmates facing the capital punishment were not provided with interpreters in the court," he said. "I think if the legal proceedings were held fairly, many inmates would have escaped capital punishment."
By Heru Andriyanto
The Jakarta Globe
22 May, 2009
Human rights groups are blasting an Attorney General's Office plan to limit the window of time inmates facing the firing squad would be allowed to lodge a final case review - to 30 days. Under Indonesian law, condemned inmates may request a case review once the Supreme Court rejects their appeal, but they must present new evidence
"It's very unlikely inmates could secure new evidence in only 30 days," said Papang Hidayat, head of research at the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) on Thursday.
"In other words, more and more inmates will be put to death if [the AGO proposal] becomes law."
He said Kontras remains firm in its position that capital punishment should be outlawed. Last year, the state executed 10 inmates convicted of terrorism, drug trafficking and murder. There are 111 inmates currently on death row.
The Supreme Court this year ruled that the AGO could unilaterally set a deadline for case review requests in capital punishment cases, citing as precedent that in civil cases, a review deadline stands at 180 days.
But Abdul Hakim Ritonga, an AGO deputy in charge of judicial killings, said last week that 180 days was too long, and proposed 30 days instead. Abdul leads a five-member AGO team tasked with setting up a new appeals deadline.
Rusdi Marpaung with the human rights group Imparsial said the proposal reflected the AGO’s view that executions were "business as usual."
"I cannot understand why the AGO feels so easy in planning more executions. In our view, the death sentence is against the 1945 Constitution and accordingly must be abolished," Rusdi said.
While abolishing capital punishment appears to be an uphill battle, particularly during an election year, Papang suggested that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, which has executed 19 inmates since 2004, could impose a moratorium on death sentences.
"The most important thing to do is to mend the poor judicial system that is unable to deliver fair justice to death row inmates,” Papang said.
"Just take a look at the fact that many foreign inmates facing the capital punishment were not provided with interpreters in the court," he said. "I think if the legal proceedings were held fairly, many inmates would have escaped capital punishment."
Pakistan: Appeal for Zulfiqar Ali Khan
Amnesty International has issued the following Urgent Action appeal for Zulfiqar Ali Khan, who it believes is facing the threat of imminent execution.
1 May 2009
PAKISTAN Zulfiqar Ali Khan (m), aged 38
Zulfiqar Ali Khan is at imminent risk of execution as his most recent stay is due to expire on 6 May. He has been granted three stays of execution since October 2008. President Zardari rejected his final mercy petition on 29 September 2008. He is imprisoned at Adiala Central Jail, in the city of Rawalpindi, Punjab province.
Zulfiqar Ali was arrested for murder on 14 April 1998. According to his lawyer Zulfiqar Ali committed the crime in self-defence.During the 11 years he has been on death row, Zulfiqar Ali has gained a Masters Degree in Political Science and is currently studying for a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree. He has also contributed to the education of other inmates. According to his lawyer, Zulfiqar Ali’s academic achievements while in prison are commendable and he has been an example of a successfully rehabilitated prisoner.
Zulfiqar Ali is the only surviving parent of his two daughters, aged 10 and 11. His wife died of leukaemia in 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
An estimated 236 people were sentenced to death in Pakistan in 2008, and a total of 36 people were executed. Prime Minister Gilani's announcement on 21 June 2008 that all existing death sentences would be commuted is being considered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is to rule on its constitutionality. Sixteen people have been put to death after the Prime Minister's statement.
There are currently more than 7,000 people who are on death row in Pakistan. The former Human Rights Minister, Ansar Burney, stated that 60 to 65 percent of death row prisoners were innocent or “victims of a faulty system”.
On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on a worldwide moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The former government of Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf, voted against the resolution.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases. The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, and not a solution to it. It has not been shown to have any greater deterrent effect than other punishments, and carries the risk of irrevocable error. The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in English or your own language:
- calling on the President Zardari to use his powers under Article 45 of the Constitution to commute the death sentence handed down to Zulfiqar Ali;
- calling on the President Zardari to urgently implement the June 21 proposal to commute death sentences in Pakistan;
- calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions in the country, in accordance with the UN General Assembly resolutions on a moratorium on executions adopted in 2007 and 2008, reinforcing the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty.
APPEALS TO:
President
Mr Asif Ali Zardari
Pakistan Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 922 1422/ 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835 (Faxes may be switched off outside office hours. Pakistan is 6 hours ahead of GMT)
Salutation: Dear President Zardari
COPIES TO: diplomatic representatives of Pakistan accredited to your country.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
1 May 2009
PAKISTAN Zulfiqar Ali Khan (m), aged 38
Zulfiqar Ali Khan is at imminent risk of execution as his most recent stay is due to expire on 6 May. He has been granted three stays of execution since October 2008. President Zardari rejected his final mercy petition on 29 September 2008. He is imprisoned at Adiala Central Jail, in the city of Rawalpindi, Punjab province.
Zulfiqar Ali was arrested for murder on 14 April 1998. According to his lawyer Zulfiqar Ali committed the crime in self-defence.During the 11 years he has been on death row, Zulfiqar Ali has gained a Masters Degree in Political Science and is currently studying for a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree. He has also contributed to the education of other inmates. According to his lawyer, Zulfiqar Ali’s academic achievements while in prison are commendable and he has been an example of a successfully rehabilitated prisoner.
Zulfiqar Ali is the only surviving parent of his two daughters, aged 10 and 11. His wife died of leukaemia in 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
An estimated 236 people were sentenced to death in Pakistan in 2008, and a total of 36 people were executed. Prime Minister Gilani's announcement on 21 June 2008 that all existing death sentences would be commuted is being considered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is to rule on its constitutionality. Sixteen people have been put to death after the Prime Minister's statement.
There are currently more than 7,000 people who are on death row in Pakistan. The former Human Rights Minister, Ansar Burney, stated that 60 to 65 percent of death row prisoners were innocent or “victims of a faulty system”.
On 18 December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on a worldwide moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The former government of Pakistan, under President Pervez Musharraf, voted against the resolution.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases. The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, and not a solution to it. It has not been shown to have any greater deterrent effect than other punishments, and carries the risk of irrevocable error. The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in English or your own language:
- calling on the President Zardari to use his powers under Article 45 of the Constitution to commute the death sentence handed down to Zulfiqar Ali;
- calling on the President Zardari to urgently implement the June 21 proposal to commute death sentences in Pakistan;
- calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions in the country, in accordance with the UN General Assembly resolutions on a moratorium on executions adopted in 2007 and 2008, reinforcing the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty.
APPEALS TO:
President
Mr Asif Ali Zardari
Pakistan Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 922 1422/ 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835 (Faxes may be switched off outside office hours. Pakistan is 6 hours ahead of GMT)
Salutation: Dear President Zardari
COPIES TO: diplomatic representatives of Pakistan accredited to your country.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
ADP: A change in approach
Since the inception of the Asia Death Penalty blog in February 2006, I have written about major developments in the death penalty in Asia, drawing on media reports and work of regional and international human rights organisations.
Other stories have been based on my own commentary on the death penalty and tracking developments such as the rate of executions in Indonesia and Japan.
With recent changes in my (paid) work, I don’t have as much time to devote to writing for the blog. I am also devoting more time to another death penalty-related project.
Feedback from readers over the past three years has indicated the blog is playing a useful role pointing people to events and debates in the region, synthesising reports and preserving some of the stories that become lost to archives and the continual wave of new content online.
While I will not be able to devote as much time to writing original stories in the foreseeable future, I will continue to post major news stories and human rights reports. When time allows, I will post other original stories.
Thank you for reading, and please continue to send me tips and information that may be of interest for other readers of this blog.
Other stories have been based on my own commentary on the death penalty and tracking developments such as the rate of executions in Indonesia and Japan.
With recent changes in my (paid) work, I don’t have as much time to devote to writing for the blog. I am also devoting more time to another death penalty-related project.
Feedback from readers over the past three years has indicated the blog is playing a useful role pointing people to events and debates in the region, synthesising reports and preserving some of the stories that become lost to archives and the continual wave of new content online.
While I will not be able to devote as much time to writing original stories in the foreseeable future, I will continue to post major news stories and human rights reports. When time allows, I will post other original stories.
Thank you for reading, and please continue to send me tips and information that may be of interest for other readers of this blog.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China
The Supreme People's Court (SPC) is attempting to improve consistency in the application of the death penalty in China in cases involving violence, robbery or drug trafficking.
The SPC is developing a guideline to "unify standards" for lower courts, according to a senior judge quoted by state newsagency Xinhua.
The guideline would apply to murder, robbery, abduction, drug trafficking and intentional injury, which the judge said accounted for nearly all death sentences handed down.
"It will include the necessary conditions for handing down the death sentence to those found guilty of any of the five crimes," he said.
"We must unify standards across the county so as to avoid such situations where different sentences are handed down to people found guilty of committing similar crimes."
However the report said the guideline was not expected to apply to cases involving economic crimes.
Xinhua said professor Chen Weidong, from the Renmin University of China, said unifying standards for capital punishment in serious economic cases would be complicated as "the value and harm done by economic crimes differ greatly, and the time is not yet right to set guidelines".
Capital, and punishment
China applies the death penalty to 68 offences, including for non-violent crimes.
A number of high-profile financial scandals have generated debate in China recently over the use, and consistency, of death sentences for economic offences.
Amnesty International (AI) reported an appeal by businesswoman Du Yimin was rejected on 13 January, after she was sentenced to death for illegally raising 700 million yuan (102 million U.S. dollars) in investments in her beauty parlours.
"Du Yimin’s death sentence has caused a debate about consistency in application of the death penalty," AI said.
"The day before she was sentenced to death, an official who used 15.8 billion Yuan of public funds to cover his personal spending was sentenced to fixed term imprisonment."
She was convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds", although her lawyer argued she should have been convicted of the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits", which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 yuan (73,000 U.S. dollars).
She could be executed at any time if her sentence is confirmed by the SPC.
'Reduced', but insufficient evidence
The SPC has claimed it overturned 15 per cent of death sentences in 2007 and the first half of 2008, although the government has consistently failed to release statistics to verify this claim.
Statistics about the use of the death penalty in China are classified as 'state secrets'.
Xinhua reported in June 2008 that the "high rejection rate shows how cautious the judiciary has been with capital punishment after the SPC took back the right to review death sentences from lower courts" from 1 January that year.
The presiding judge of the SPC's Third Criminal Law Court, Gao Jinghong, said at that time that the majority of the death sentences overturned were inappropriate or lacked sufficient evidence.
Xinhua also reported claims in May 2008 that Chinese courts had handed down 30 per cent fewer death sentences in 2007, compared with 2006 figures.
Related stories:
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
The SPC is developing a guideline to "unify standards" for lower courts, according to a senior judge quoted by state newsagency Xinhua.
The guideline would apply to murder, robbery, abduction, drug trafficking and intentional injury, which the judge said accounted for nearly all death sentences handed down.
"It will include the necessary conditions for handing down the death sentence to those found guilty of any of the five crimes," he said.
"We must unify standards across the county so as to avoid such situations where different sentences are handed down to people found guilty of committing similar crimes."
However the report said the guideline was not expected to apply to cases involving economic crimes.
Xinhua said professor Chen Weidong, from the Renmin University of China, said unifying standards for capital punishment in serious economic cases would be complicated as "the value and harm done by economic crimes differ greatly, and the time is not yet right to set guidelines".
Capital, and punishment
China applies the death penalty to 68 offences, including for non-violent crimes.
A number of high-profile financial scandals have generated debate in China recently over the use, and consistency, of death sentences for economic offences.
Amnesty International (AI) reported an appeal by businesswoman Du Yimin was rejected on 13 January, after she was sentenced to death for illegally raising 700 million yuan (102 million U.S. dollars) in investments in her beauty parlours.
"Du Yimin’s death sentence has caused a debate about consistency in application of the death penalty," AI said.
"The day before she was sentenced to death, an official who used 15.8 billion Yuan of public funds to cover his personal spending was sentenced to fixed term imprisonment."
She was convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds", although her lawyer argued she should have been convicted of the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits", which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 yuan (73,000 U.S. dollars).
She could be executed at any time if her sentence is confirmed by the SPC.
'Reduced', but insufficient evidence
The SPC has claimed it overturned 15 per cent of death sentences in 2007 and the first half of 2008, although the government has consistently failed to release statistics to verify this claim.
Statistics about the use of the death penalty in China are classified as 'state secrets'.
Xinhua reported in June 2008 that the "high rejection rate shows how cautious the judiciary has been with capital punishment after the SPC took back the right to review death sentences from lower courts" from 1 January that year.
The presiding judge of the SPC's Third Criminal Law Court, Gao Jinghong, said at that time that the majority of the death sentences overturned were inappropriate or lacked sufficient evidence.
Xinhua also reported claims in May 2008 that Chinese courts had handed down 30 per cent fewer death sentences in 2007, compared with 2006 figures.
Related stories:
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
Friday, 6 March 2009
Government clash with top lawyer: Singapore
Singapore's law minister has attacked the president of the Law Society in Parliament for questioning the transparency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on 19 January that society president Michael Hwang SC had mounted "theoretical arguments" about crime and punishment that lacked "any real merit".
He was responding to an editorial published in the January edition of the Law Gazette, which argued that a measurable deterrence and proportionality between crime and punishment should underpin "a rational sentencing policy".
The article was a largely theoretical discussion of the purpose of punishment, and the role of deterrence and proportionality in sentencing.
Hwang called for greater research to inform a fundamental "re-think" of the country's laws and sentences, concluding that "Singapore is sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal policy".
"Possibly, this is because Government has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment so that social scientists can undertake adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners (especially recidivists)," he wrote.
"Only rigorous research with full access to relevant information can help us determine important penological questions such as:
"Is the death penalty effective in preventing murder and other capital crimes?
"Do strict liability offences achieve their object of deterring anti-social behaviour?
"What kind of punishments best deter what kind of behaviour?"
Shanmugam rejected the argument that the criminal justice system was "unprincipled".
"[A]any objective analysis of our penal system will show that the system is based on sound practical philosophy and principles, which have been made clear several times," he said.
"While we take a tough stand on crime, we also believe strongly in compassion and rehabilitation."
Statistics, secrets
He told Parliament the lawyer's article was unclear about what statistics should be published to aid research, and it ignored statistics currently published by police and narcotics control officials.
He said Hwang suggested the "publication of detailed statistics will lead us to a possibly conclusive answer to the debate on capital punishment".
"The debate on capital punishment ... is not going to be settled on the basis of statistics," he said.
There was "no universal consensus on such punishment".
"Serious and bitter debate on capital punishment has raged on in many countries.
"The philosophical and ideological chasms that separate the proponents and opponents of capital punishment are quite unbridgeable. Both sides marshal powerful arguments.
"On an issue like this, the Government has to take a stand."
Shanmugam responded to the claim the system was lacking in transparency with the government's usual argument that capital cases were "matters of public record" and the media reported on cases heard in open court.
However, the Singapore government has resisted repeated calls from human rights organisations and the United Nations (UN) to publish comprehensive information about who is sentenced to death, and for what crimes, as well as how many people are executed each year.
Threat, clarification
In comments quoted by The Straits Times, Shanmugam implied the criticism could damage the government's relationship with the Law Society.
"We have had a constructive and professional relationship with the Law Society for several years," Shanmugam said, according to The Straits Times.
"And for that to continue and for us to take the views seriously, the views that are expressed by the Law Society have to be well thought through and substantiated by facts.
"Sound bites and sweeping statements which are contrary to the facts, and which show a basic lack of understanding of our criminal laws and procedure, and approach to sentencing is not really constructive or helpful."
Michael Hwang stressed in the February 2009 issue of the Law Gazette that his article did not represent the views of the Law Society and was not approved by its governing council.
He said he would write to the minister "to explain the basis" of his message.
"I do not intend to have a public debate with the Minister but hope to have a constructive private dialogue with him."
Related stories:
Tochi in Singapore: "the burden thus shifted" -- 26 January 2008
Asian activists condemn drug executions -- 8 July 2007
Drug penalty violates international law -- 6 May 2007
Singapore activists: Rethink death penalty -- 23 January 2007
Remembering Van Tuong Nguyen -- 29 November 2006
Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on 19 January that society president Michael Hwang SC had mounted "theoretical arguments" about crime and punishment that lacked "any real merit".
He was responding to an editorial published in the January edition of the Law Gazette, which argued that a measurable deterrence and proportionality between crime and punishment should underpin "a rational sentencing policy".
The article was a largely theoretical discussion of the purpose of punishment, and the role of deterrence and proportionality in sentencing.
Hwang called for greater research to inform a fundamental "re-think" of the country's laws and sentences, concluding that "Singapore is sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal policy".
"Possibly, this is because Government has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment so that social scientists can undertake adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners (especially recidivists)," he wrote.
"Only rigorous research with full access to relevant information can help us determine important penological questions such as:
"Is the death penalty effective in preventing murder and other capital crimes?
"Do strict liability offences achieve their object of deterring anti-social behaviour?
"What kind of punishments best deter what kind of behaviour?"
Shanmugam rejected the argument that the criminal justice system was "unprincipled".
"[A]any objective analysis of our penal system will show that the system is based on sound practical philosophy and principles, which have been made clear several times," he said.
"While we take a tough stand on crime, we also believe strongly in compassion and rehabilitation."
Statistics, secrets
He told Parliament the lawyer's article was unclear about what statistics should be published to aid research, and it ignored statistics currently published by police and narcotics control officials.
He said Hwang suggested the "publication of detailed statistics will lead us to a possibly conclusive answer to the debate on capital punishment".
"The debate on capital punishment ... is not going to be settled on the basis of statistics," he said.
There was "no universal consensus on such punishment".
"Serious and bitter debate on capital punishment has raged on in many countries.
"The philosophical and ideological chasms that separate the proponents and opponents of capital punishment are quite unbridgeable. Both sides marshal powerful arguments.
"On an issue like this, the Government has to take a stand."
Shanmugam responded to the claim the system was lacking in transparency with the government's usual argument that capital cases were "matters of public record" and the media reported on cases heard in open court.
However, the Singapore government has resisted repeated calls from human rights organisations and the United Nations (UN) to publish comprehensive information about who is sentenced to death, and for what crimes, as well as how many people are executed each year.
Threat, clarification
In comments quoted by The Straits Times, Shanmugam implied the criticism could damage the government's relationship with the Law Society.
"We have had a constructive and professional relationship with the Law Society for several years," Shanmugam said, according to The Straits Times.
"And for that to continue and for us to take the views seriously, the views that are expressed by the Law Society have to be well thought through and substantiated by facts.
"Sound bites and sweeping statements which are contrary to the facts, and which show a basic lack of understanding of our criminal laws and procedure, and approach to sentencing is not really constructive or helpful."
Michael Hwang stressed in the February 2009 issue of the Law Gazette that his article did not represent the views of the Law Society and was not approved by its governing council.
He said he would write to the minister "to explain the basis" of his message.
"I do not intend to have a public debate with the Minister but hope to have a constructive private dialogue with him."
Related stories:
Tochi in Singapore: "the burden thus shifted" -- 26 January 2008
Asian activists condemn drug executions -- 8 July 2007
Drug penalty violates international law -- 6 May 2007
Singapore activists: Rethink death penalty -- 23 January 2007
Remembering Van Tuong Nguyen -- 29 November 2006
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Is Japan choosing next to die?
Amnesty International (AI) is concerned that Japan's Justice Minister Mori Eisuke is selecting the next prisoners for execution in order to minimise public objection to further hangings.
The organisation issued an international Urgent Action appeal on 27 February naming five men believed to be "at imminent risk of execution".
It said the minister wanted to increase the pace of executions, and he "is seeking to avoid public objections by singling out for execution those who, like these five, have recently abandoned their appeals or were convicted of crimes that have led to 'public revulsion'."
The men are:
Mori Eisuke has now sent six men to the gallows since he was appointed justice minister on 24 September 2008.
The last executions were carried out on 29 January 2009, when four men were hanged for murder.
Younger, faster death
Unusually for Japan's death penalty system, four of the men named are under 40 years of age.
Death row prisoners often wait several decades in prison before they are executed, usually receiving only a few hours' notice of when they will be killed. Some receive no warning at all.
However there have been recent worrying signs that Japan is speeding up executions after sentences are finalised.
Of the 32 people hanged in Japan since December 2006, five were aged in their 70s and 12 were in their 60s.
Related stories:
Japan: New year, more hangings -- 29 January 2009
Japan may execute before year ends -- 16 December 2008
Japan: Record toll with new hangings -- 28 October 2008
Japan: New minister faces next hanging -- 14 October 2008
Japan: New minister sends three to death -- 12 September 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April 2008
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August 2006
[Corrected 9 March 2009, updated information issued by AI.]
The organisation issued an international Urgent Action appeal on 27 February naming five men believed to be "at imminent risk of execution".
It said the minister wanted to increase the pace of executions, and he "is seeking to avoid public objections by singling out for execution those who, like these five, have recently abandoned their appeals or were convicted of crimes that have led to 'public revulsion'."
The men are:
- YAMAJI Yukio (m), born 1983
- SHINOZAWA Kazuo (m), born 1952
- ZODA Hiroshi (m), born 1976
- MAEUE Hiroshi (m), born 1971
- OGATA Hideki (m), born 1980.
Mori Eisuke has now sent six men to the gallows since he was appointed justice minister on 24 September 2008.
The last executions were carried out on 29 January 2009, when four men were hanged for murder.
Younger, faster death
Unusually for Japan's death penalty system, four of the men named are under 40 years of age.
Death row prisoners often wait several decades in prison before they are executed, usually receiving only a few hours' notice of when they will be killed. Some receive no warning at all.
However there have been recent worrying signs that Japan is speeding up executions after sentences are finalised.
Of the 32 people hanged in Japan since December 2006, five were aged in their 70s and 12 were in their 60s.
Related stories:
Japan: New year, more hangings -- 29 January 2009
Japan may execute before year ends -- 16 December 2008
Japan: Record toll with new hangings -- 28 October 2008
Japan: New minister faces next hanging -- 14 October 2008
Japan: New minister sends three to death -- 12 September 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April 2008
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August 2006
[Corrected 9 March 2009, updated information issued by AI.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
