Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari has received a proposal to convert death sentences to life imprisonment, according to a television report quoted by the Daily Times.
The newspaper reported today that the Interior Ministry sent a summary proposal to the president for approval.
According to the Pakistani newspaper, the television report said the federal government sent the proposal to the Law Ministry six months ago, which then forwarded a revised draft to the Interior Ministry.
It said if the law was approved, it would not apply to "people sentenced to death for terrorist attacks harming national integrity".
In June 2008, prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the government would propose to the president that all death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
If it was applied to Pakistan's current death row population, up to 7,000 death row prisoners could be spared execution by hanging.
Despite the review, president Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence, and human rights organisations have reported that prisoners were still being executed.
Related stories:
Pakistan's mixed signals on death penalty -- 2 December 2008
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Friday, 30 January 2009
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Japan: New year, more hangings
Human rights campaigners have condemned the first executions carried out in Japan in 2009, following the hanging of four prisoners in three cities this morning [29 January].
The Justice Ministry reportedly confirmed the men, all executed for murder, were:
"These are heinous cases which destroyed precious human lives," justice minister Mori Eisuke said, according to a report by AFP newsagency.
"I ordered the executions after cautious examination."
Mori Eisuke has now sent six men to the gallows since he was appointed justice minister on 24 September 2008.
He previously approved two executions, with the hanging of Michitoshi Kuma, 70, and Masahiro Takashio, 55, on 28 October.
The Japanese section of Amnesty International condemned the latest executions.
"We feel strong anger over these executions," the organisation's Tokyo branch said in a statement quoted by AFP.
"The Japanese government should recognise its international obligation to establish a criminal justice system which does not rely on capital punishment"
Japan executed a total of fifteen people in 2008, the highest rate in more than thirty years.
Related stories:
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 2 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
The Justice Ministry reportedly confirmed the men, all executed for murder, were:
- Shojiro Nishimoto, 32, hanged at the Tokyo Detention Center
- Yukinari Kawamura, 44, and Tetsuya Sato, 39, hanged in Nagoya
- Tadashi Makino, 58, hanged in Fukuoka.
"These are heinous cases which destroyed precious human lives," justice minister Mori Eisuke said, according to a report by AFP newsagency.
"I ordered the executions after cautious examination."
Mori Eisuke has now sent six men to the gallows since he was appointed justice minister on 24 September 2008.
He previously approved two executions, with the hanging of Michitoshi Kuma, 70, and Masahiro Takashio, 55, on 28 October.
The Japanese section of Amnesty International condemned the latest executions.
"We feel strong anger over these executions," the organisation's Tokyo branch said in a statement quoted by AFP.
"The Japanese government should recognise its international obligation to establish a criminal justice system which does not rely on capital punishment"
Japan executed a total of fifteen people in 2008, the highest rate in more than thirty years.
Related stories:
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 2 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
China: Death over milk, but no official answers
Two men have been sentenced to death in China and 19 people jailed over a milk contamination scandal that killed six infants and left hundreds of thousands with chronic health problems.
However there has been no public accounting for how the Sanlu Group was permitted to sell milk powder cut with plastic chemicals -- and to continue supplying hundreds of tons of the product for five weeks after the contamination was revealed in official testing.
Zhang Yujun and Geng Jinping were sentenced to death for producing and selling baby milk powder laced with melamine powder to artificially boost test results meant to measure protein levels.
Chinese government newsagency Xinhua reported that Zhang Yujun was convicted of endangering public safety for producing 770 tons of "protein powder" and selling more than 600 tons.
Geng Jinping, convicted of manufacturing and selling toxic food, sold Sanlu more than 900 tons of milk tainted by 434 kg of protein powder.
Four former Sanlu executives received sentences ranging from five years to life imprisonment, according to the Xinhua report.
"The Ministry of Health has put the number of infants who died after drinking melamine contaminated milk products at six," the report said.
"Another 296,000 infants suffered kidney stones and other urinary problems."
Official reports blamed Sanlu for continuing to sell contaminated milk products after test results revealed it had been supplied with suspect "protein powder".
"The management of Sanlu decided to continue producing baby milk powder containing melamine after the Hebei Provincial Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau confirmed on Aug. 1 last year that samples sent by the company were contaminated," Xinhua said.
"From Aug. 2 to Sept. 12 last year, Sanlu Group produced 904 tons of melamine-tainted baby formula powder and sold 813 tons of the tainted products, making 47.5 million yuan."
Selective blame
Western media reported that local government officials ordered the state-controlled company to keep quiet and prevented it from recalling the products from sale ahead of the 2008 Olympic games.
The contamination was only acted on when the New Zealand government reported it to Chinese authorities. New Zealand company Fonterra had a 43 per cent stake in Sanlu, which it has since written off.
And while 22 companies were said to be involved in the scandal, only executives from Sanlu and a range of middlemen have so far been charged, prompting accusations of corruption or scapegoating.
China's english language media also did not report accusations against the government by the families of victims of the scandal.
"I think the government officials involved should shoulder the criminal responsibilities they deserve," said Zhao Lianhai, whose three year-old son was affected by the milk and who has campaigned for compensation.
"They should be put on trial as well, but I'm sorry to say that nothing is happening," he said, according to the UK's Daily Telegraph.
Related stories:
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
China executes drug regulator -- 12 July, 2007
However there has been no public accounting for how the Sanlu Group was permitted to sell milk powder cut with plastic chemicals -- and to continue supplying hundreds of tons of the product for five weeks after the contamination was revealed in official testing.
Zhang Yujun and Geng Jinping were sentenced to death for producing and selling baby milk powder laced with melamine powder to artificially boost test results meant to measure protein levels.
Chinese government newsagency Xinhua reported that Zhang Yujun was convicted of endangering public safety for producing 770 tons of "protein powder" and selling more than 600 tons.
Geng Jinping, convicted of manufacturing and selling toxic food, sold Sanlu more than 900 tons of milk tainted by 434 kg of protein powder.
Four former Sanlu executives received sentences ranging from five years to life imprisonment, according to the Xinhua report.
"The Ministry of Health has put the number of infants who died after drinking melamine contaminated milk products at six," the report said.
"Another 296,000 infants suffered kidney stones and other urinary problems."
Official reports blamed Sanlu for continuing to sell contaminated milk products after test results revealed it had been supplied with suspect "protein powder".
"The management of Sanlu decided to continue producing baby milk powder containing melamine after the Hebei Provincial Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau confirmed on Aug. 1 last year that samples sent by the company were contaminated," Xinhua said.
"From Aug. 2 to Sept. 12 last year, Sanlu Group produced 904 tons of melamine-tainted baby formula powder and sold 813 tons of the tainted products, making 47.5 million yuan."
Selective blame
Western media reported that local government officials ordered the state-controlled company to keep quiet and prevented it from recalling the products from sale ahead of the 2008 Olympic games.
The contamination was only acted on when the New Zealand government reported it to Chinese authorities. New Zealand company Fonterra had a 43 per cent stake in Sanlu, which it has since written off.
And while 22 companies were said to be involved in the scandal, only executives from Sanlu and a range of middlemen have so far been charged, prompting accusations of corruption or scapegoating.
China's english language media also did not report accusations against the government by the families of victims of the scandal.
"I think the government officials involved should shoulder the criminal responsibilities they deserve," said Zhao Lianhai, whose three year-old son was affected by the milk and who has campaigned for compensation.
"They should be put on trial as well, but I'm sorry to say that nothing is happening," he said, according to the UK's Daily Telegraph.
Related stories:
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
China executes drug regulator -- 12 July, 2007
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Organ transplant after execution: Singapore
A prominent Singapore businessman reportedly received a kidney transplant last Friday using an organ donated by an executed gangster.
According to The Straits Times, police confirmed former gang leader Tan Chor Jin was hanged in Changi prison on the morning of 9 January, for the 2006 shooting of a nightclub owner.
The paper reported that retail magnate Tang Wee Sung received the kidney transplant later in the day in the National University Hospital.
Tan, 42, was executed about two weeks after his appeal for presidential clemency was rejected in the last week of December.
Singapore's president has granted clemency only six times since the country since independence in 1965.
Singapore newspapers reported in the days before Tan's execution that he had told his wife and mistress he wanted to donate his organs after his death.
Tan, 42, was convicted in May 2007 of discharging a firearm, which carries a mandatory death penalty.
The High Court was told he entered nightclub operator Lim Hock Soon's flat on the morning of 15 February, 2006, ordering him to tie up his wife, daughter and their maid. Tan fired six rounds from a pistol, hitting Lim five times and killing him instantly.
He was arrested in a hotel raid by Malaysian police after he fled to Kuala Lumpur.
The High Court rejected his defence arguments that he had been drunk, the shots were fired accidentally and he had acted in self-defence after Mr Lim threw a chair at him.
Tan discharged his lawyer and represented himself during his trial, but he was represented in his appeal by criminal lawyers Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan.
He was referred to by the media as a triad gang leader and the 'One-eyed Dragon' because he was blind in his right eye.
The New Paper claimed in 2006 that Tan was hired by a Malaysian crime syndicate to kill Lim in a dispute over gambling winnings.
Tang was jailed for a day and fined $17,000 in 2008 in the country's first organ trading case, after he was convicted of trying to buy a kidney from an Indonesian.
In the previous reported execution, Singapore hanged Mohammed Ali Johari on 19 December 2008 for the murder of his 2-year-old stepdaughter.
According to The Straits Times, police confirmed former gang leader Tan Chor Jin was hanged in Changi prison on the morning of 9 January, for the 2006 shooting of a nightclub owner.
The paper reported that retail magnate Tang Wee Sung received the kidney transplant later in the day in the National University Hospital.
Tan, 42, was executed about two weeks after his appeal for presidential clemency was rejected in the last week of December.
Singapore's president has granted clemency only six times since the country since independence in 1965.
Singapore newspapers reported in the days before Tan's execution that he had told his wife and mistress he wanted to donate his organs after his death.
Tan, 42, was convicted in May 2007 of discharging a firearm, which carries a mandatory death penalty.
The High Court was told he entered nightclub operator Lim Hock Soon's flat on the morning of 15 February, 2006, ordering him to tie up his wife, daughter and their maid. Tan fired six rounds from a pistol, hitting Lim five times and killing him instantly.
He was arrested in a hotel raid by Malaysian police after he fled to Kuala Lumpur.
The High Court rejected his defence arguments that he had been drunk, the shots were fired accidentally and he had acted in self-defence after Mr Lim threw a chair at him.
Tan discharged his lawyer and represented himself during his trial, but he was represented in his appeal by criminal lawyers Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan.
He was referred to by the media as a triad gang leader and the 'One-eyed Dragon' because he was blind in his right eye.
The New Paper claimed in 2006 that Tan was hired by a Malaysian crime syndicate to kill Lim in a dispute over gambling winnings.
Tang was jailed for a day and fined $17,000 in 2008 in the country's first organ trading case, after he was convicted of trying to buy a kidney from an Indonesian.
In the previous reported execution, Singapore hanged Mohammed Ali Johari on 19 December 2008 for the murder of his 2-year-old stepdaughter.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008
Japan has executed 28 people since December 2006. All were hanged for crimes including murder.
Justice minister Mori Eisuke
+ Appointed minister 24 September 2008
+ Approved 2 executions (to end 2008)
28 October 2008
Michitoshi Kuma, 70 (Fukuoka)
Masahiro Takashio, 55 (Sendai)
Justice minister Okiharu Yasuoka
+ Minister from August -- September 2008
+ Approved 3 executions
+ Approved 3 further executions when he served as justice minister from July -- December 2000
11 September 2008
Yoshiyuki Mantani, 68 (Osaka)
Mineteru Yamamoto, 68 (Osaka)
Isamu Hirano, 61 (Tokyo)
Justice minister Kunio Hatoyama
+ 27 August 2007 -- August 2008
+ Approved 13 executions
17 June 2008
Tsutomu Miyazaki, 45 (Tokyo)
Shinji Mutsuda, 37 (Tokyo)
Yoshio Yamasaki, 73 (Osaka)
10 April 2008
Masahito Sakamoto, 41 (Tokyo)
Kaoru Okashita, 61 (Tokyo)
Katsuyoshi Nakamoto, 64 (Osaka)
Masaharu Nakamura, 61 (Osaka)
1 February 2008
Masahiko Matsubara, 63 (Osaka)
Takashi Mochida, 65 (Tokyo)
Keishi Nago, 37 (Fukuoka)
7 December 2007
Seiha Fujima, 47 (Tokyo)
Hiroki Fukawa, 42 (Tokyo)
Noboru Ikemoto, 75 (Osaka)
Justice minister Jinen Nagase
+ Minister from 26 September 2006 -- August 2007
+ Approved 10 executions
23 August, 2007
Hifumi Takezawa, 69 (Tokyo)
Yoshio Iwamoto, 63 (Tokyo)
Kozo Segawa, 60 (Nagoya)
27 April 2007
Kosaku Nata, 56 (Osaka)
Yoshikatsu Oda, 59 (Fukuoka)
Masahiro Tanaka (also Miyashita), 42 (Tokyo)
25 December 2006
Yoshimitsu Akiyama, 77 (Tokyo)
Hiroaki Hidaka, 44 (Hiroshima)
Yoshio Fujinami, 75 (Tokyo)
Michio Fukuoka, 64 (Osaka)
Seiken Sugiura, who was justice minister from October 2005 -- September 2005, approved no executions as a result of his Buddhist religious beliefs.
The last execution prior to his appointment was reported to have been on 16 September 2005.
Related stories:
Japan: Record toll with new hangings -- 28 October 2008
Japan: New minister sends three to death -- 12 September 2008
Justice minister Mori Eisuke
+ Appointed minister 24 September 2008
+ Approved 2 executions (to end 2008)
28 October 2008
Michitoshi Kuma, 70 (Fukuoka)
Masahiro Takashio, 55 (Sendai)
Justice minister Okiharu Yasuoka
+ Minister from August -- September 2008
+ Approved 3 executions
+ Approved 3 further executions when he served as justice minister from July -- December 2000
11 September 2008
Yoshiyuki Mantani, 68 (Osaka)
Mineteru Yamamoto, 68 (Osaka)
Isamu Hirano, 61 (Tokyo)
Justice minister Kunio Hatoyama
+ 27 August 2007 -- August 2008
+ Approved 13 executions
17 June 2008
Tsutomu Miyazaki, 45 (Tokyo)
Shinji Mutsuda, 37 (Tokyo)
Yoshio Yamasaki, 73 (Osaka)
10 April 2008
Masahito Sakamoto, 41 (Tokyo)
Kaoru Okashita, 61 (Tokyo)
Katsuyoshi Nakamoto, 64 (Osaka)
Masaharu Nakamura, 61 (Osaka)
1 February 2008
Masahiko Matsubara, 63 (Osaka)
Takashi Mochida, 65 (Tokyo)
Keishi Nago, 37 (Fukuoka)
7 December 2007
Seiha Fujima, 47 (Tokyo)
Hiroki Fukawa, 42 (Tokyo)
Noboru Ikemoto, 75 (Osaka)
Justice minister Jinen Nagase
+ Minister from 26 September 2006 -- August 2007
+ Approved 10 executions
23 August, 2007
Hifumi Takezawa, 69 (Tokyo)
Yoshio Iwamoto, 63 (Tokyo)
Kozo Segawa, 60 (Nagoya)
27 April 2007
Kosaku Nata, 56 (Osaka)
Yoshikatsu Oda, 59 (Fukuoka)
Masahiro Tanaka (also Miyashita), 42 (Tokyo)
25 December 2006
Yoshimitsu Akiyama, 77 (Tokyo)
Hiroaki Hidaka, 44 (Hiroshima)
Yoshio Fujinami, 75 (Tokyo)
Michio Fukuoka, 64 (Osaka)
Seiken Sugiura, who was justice minister from October 2005 -- September 2005, approved no executions as a result of his Buddhist religious beliefs.
The last execution prior to his appointment was reported to have been on 16 September 2005.
Related stories:
Japan: Record toll with new hangings -- 28 October 2008
Japan: New minister sends three to death -- 12 September 2008
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Japan may execute before year ends
There are fears Japan may carry out more executions after the current session of parliament is due to end on 25 December.
The country doesn't usually execute while parliament is in session, raising concerns of a spate of hangings each time the Japanese parliament (Diet) goes into recess.
Japan has executed fifteen people so far in 2008, the highest rate in more than thirty years.
The last executions were carried out in October, when two convicted murderers were sent to the gallows by new justice minister Eisuke Mori, who had only been in the job a matter of weeks.
Next in line?
Amnesty International (AI) is concerned Makino Tadashi may be among those hanged before the end of the year.
Makino Tadashi has been at serious risk of execution since 30 September, when his latest appeal for clemency was rejected.
He was sentenced to death in 1990 for murdering a woman and injuring two others, after previously serving 16 and a half years in prison for a murder and robbery committed when he was 19 years old.
According to AI appeals, his lawyers argued unsuccessfully during his trial in 1994 that "he lacked adequate mental capacity and could not be responsible for his crimes".
A series of appeals and legal challenges have all been rejected.
Increasing toll
There has been a rapid increase in executions in Japan since December 2006, with 28 people hanged in two years.
Japan executed four prisoners, including two men over seventy years of age, on 25 December 2006, Christmas Day.
Activists and lawyers had earlier expressed concern that the government would resume executions after the final parliamentary session for the year.
Executions in Japan are usually carried out in secret, and prisoners are only given a few hours notice they are about to die.
According to AI, "this means they must spend their entire time on death row fearing they could be taken for execution at any time".
The organisation said their families "typically receive no notice at all".
Urging action
AI is encouraging people to write letters of appeal to Minister of Justice Eisuke Mori urging him not to execute Tadashi Makino, and calling on him to end the secrecy surrounding the death penalty and order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty.
Appeal letters should be sent to:
MORI Eisuke
Minister of Justice
1-1-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-kuTokyo 100-8977, Japan
Fax: +81 3 3592 7088
+81 3 5511 7200 (via Public Information & Foreign Liaison Office)
Salutation: Dear Minister
Related stories:
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
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 12 April 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April 2008
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August 2006
The country doesn't usually execute while parliament is in session, raising concerns of a spate of hangings each time the Japanese parliament (Diet) goes into recess.
Japan has executed fifteen people so far in 2008, the highest rate in more than thirty years.
The last executions were carried out in October, when two convicted murderers were sent to the gallows by new justice minister Eisuke Mori, who had only been in the job a matter of weeks.
Next in line?
Amnesty International (AI) is concerned Makino Tadashi may be among those hanged before the end of the year.
Makino Tadashi has been at serious risk of execution since 30 September, when his latest appeal for clemency was rejected.
He was sentenced to death in 1990 for murdering a woman and injuring two others, after previously serving 16 and a half years in prison for a murder and robbery committed when he was 19 years old.
According to AI appeals, his lawyers argued unsuccessfully during his trial in 1994 that "he lacked adequate mental capacity and could not be responsible for his crimes".
A series of appeals and legal challenges have all been rejected.
Increasing toll
There has been a rapid increase in executions in Japan since December 2006, with 28 people hanged in two years.
Japan executed four prisoners, including two men over seventy years of age, on 25 December 2006, Christmas Day.
Activists and lawyers had earlier expressed concern that the government would resume executions after the final parliamentary session for the year.
Executions in Japan are usually carried out in secret, and prisoners are only given a few hours notice they are about to die.
According to AI, "this means they must spend their entire time on death row fearing they could be taken for execution at any time".
The organisation said their families "typically receive no notice at all".
Urging action
AI is encouraging people to write letters of appeal to Minister of Justice Eisuke Mori urging him not to execute Tadashi Makino, and calling on him to end the secrecy surrounding the death penalty and order an immediate moratorium on the death penalty.
Appeal letters should be sent to:
MORI Eisuke
Minister of Justice
1-1-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-kuTokyo 100-8977, Japan
Fax: +81 3 3592 7088
+81 3 5511 7200 (via Public Information & Foreign Liaison Office)
Salutation: Dear Minister
Related stories:
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
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 12 April 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April 2008
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August 2006
Friday, 12 December 2008
China: Executions to preserve order, control
[Please note: long post]
China concluded three prominent capital cases with the execution of four defendants in late November.
They included:
* Wo Weihan, a medical scientist convicted of spying and shot in Beijing on the morning of 28 November
* Yang Jia, who was executed on 26 November following his conviction for the murder of six police officers
* Wang Zhendong, who ran a financial scam involving non-existent ant farms, also executed on 26 November.
Scientist or spy?
Wo Weihan, 59, was convicted of spying for Taiwan in a trial condemned as unfair by his family and human rights groups.
His case attracted international attention after public appeals for his life from his daughters, the European Union and Austria. His wife and daughter were reportedly Austrian citizens.
Chinese media reported that his co-accused, 66 year-old missile expert Guo Wanjun, was executed on the same day. His case, however, did not generate international appeals.
Amnesty International (AI) issued several appeals urging Chinese authorities not to execute Wo Weihan and expressing concern he may not have received a fair trial, "particularly as he was not allowed prompt access to a lawyer".
In the days before the execution, AI said Wo Weihan should be pardoned rather than executed.
It said the charges against Wo Weihan included that he discussed the health of senior Chinese leaders, which was considered a state secret, and that he sent information from a "classified" magazine, which was actually available in the Chinese Academy of Sciences library.
"Available information suggests that Wo Weihan did not receive a fair trial according to international standards," said Sam Zarifi, the organisation's Asia Pacific Director.
"He was convicted of violating China's vaguely-defined state secrets law. China is entitled to prosecute people for spying but for him to be killed by the Chinese government is cruel and inhumane."
The organisation said his family claimed he confessed to the charges "in the absence of a lawyer and ... he later recanted his confession and claimed innocence, which raised doubts over his treatment in detention".
One of his daughters said her father did not receive a fair trial.
"The execution is not fair. The process was not transparent," she said.
"The evidence in the verdict was vague and circumstantial, and he was found guilty through a confession that was forced out of him and which he retracted later in court. We can only now appeal to stop any execution and keep my father alive."
His family was not officially informed of the execution and two of his daughters issued a statement afterwards saying they were "deeply shocked, saddened, disappointed and outraged".
"We, the family, were not allowed to say goodbye. We were also denied the most fundamental and universal right of information about what was happening with our father. Throughout these four years since our father's arrest, the family was kept in the dark."
Europeans condemn, Chinese defensive
Austrian foreign minister Ursula Plassnik condemned the "cold-hearted and inhuman approach taken by the Chinese judiciary” in the case, and extended her condolences to his family.
"The fact that the execution was abruptly carried out on the day of the human rights dialogue between the EU and China emphasizes the ruthlessness and coldness with which this case was handled," she said.
China was stung into defending the evidence against Wo and the conduct of his trial, issuing several statements in the week after the execution and publishing detailed allegations against him in state-run media.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Wo was convicted after a "just and fair trial" and Europen criticism was "a direct interference in China's judicial sovereignty".
According to Xinhua, Qin Gang said all citizens were equal before the law, and Wo could not be made an exception "simply because he has foreign relatives".
Mental illness claims over Yang Jia
Unemployed Shanghai man Yang Jia, 28, was executed on 26 November for killing six police officers with a knife in a 1 July attack on Shanghai's Zhabei district police station.
He was convicted of premeditated murder after a closed trial and sentenced to death on 1 September by Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.
The Shanghai Higher People's Court rejected his appeal against the death sentence on 20 October.
The Supreme People's Court approved his death sentence on 21 November, five days before he was shot.
Some reports said he was taking revenge on police for beating him in custody in October 2007, after he was arrested for riding an unlicensed bicycle and accused of stealing it.
Chinese media reports referred to claims he had unsuccessfully sued police for "psychological distress" over his interrogation, but only international reports referred to the allegations of ill-treatment by police.
Yang's lawyers argued at his trial and appeal hearings that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of the attack, but the court ruled he was mentally competent at the time.
His case generated relatively widespread discussion within China, and conflicting reports from his father and local lawyers regarding his legal representation.
Ant scammer executed
Wang Zhendong, general manager of a fake scheme to breed ants, was executed for fraud on 26 November in Liaoning Province, northeast China.
Fifteen other company managers were jailed for between five and 10 years by the Yingkou Intermediate People's Court last February.
Xinhua reported that investors lost 3 billion yuan (417 million U.S. dollars) in the scam between 2002 and 2005.
The report said more than 10,000 joined the scheme to breed ants to make liquor, herbal remedies and aphrodisiacs, which Wang promised would earn returns of 35 to 60 per cent.
The AFP newsagency said some small investors lost their life savings in the racket.
"Fake investments and pyramid investment schemes have become common during China's transition from a planned economy to a free market," AFP said.
"Chinese leaders have tried to eradicate the scams, fearing widespread losses could add to already percolating social unrest."
China concluded three prominent capital cases with the execution of four defendants in late November.
They included:
* Wo Weihan, a medical scientist convicted of spying and shot in Beijing on the morning of 28 November
* Yang Jia, who was executed on 26 November following his conviction for the murder of six police officers
* Wang Zhendong, who ran a financial scam involving non-existent ant farms, also executed on 26 November.
Scientist or spy?
Wo Weihan, 59, was convicted of spying for Taiwan in a trial condemned as unfair by his family and human rights groups.
His case attracted international attention after public appeals for his life from his daughters, the European Union and Austria. His wife and daughter were reportedly Austrian citizens.
Chinese media reported that his co-accused, 66 year-old missile expert Guo Wanjun, was executed on the same day. His case, however, did not generate international appeals.
Amnesty International (AI) issued several appeals urging Chinese authorities not to execute Wo Weihan and expressing concern he may not have received a fair trial, "particularly as he was not allowed prompt access to a lawyer".
In the days before the execution, AI said Wo Weihan should be pardoned rather than executed.
It said the charges against Wo Weihan included that he discussed the health of senior Chinese leaders, which was considered a state secret, and that he sent information from a "classified" magazine, which was actually available in the Chinese Academy of Sciences library.
"Available information suggests that Wo Weihan did not receive a fair trial according to international standards," said Sam Zarifi, the organisation's Asia Pacific Director.
"He was convicted of violating China's vaguely-defined state secrets law. China is entitled to prosecute people for spying but for him to be killed by the Chinese government is cruel and inhumane."
The organisation said his family claimed he confessed to the charges "in the absence of a lawyer and ... he later recanted his confession and claimed innocence, which raised doubts over his treatment in detention".
One of his daughters said her father did not receive a fair trial.
"The execution is not fair. The process was not transparent," she said.
"The evidence in the verdict was vague and circumstantial, and he was found guilty through a confession that was forced out of him and which he retracted later in court. We can only now appeal to stop any execution and keep my father alive."
His family was not officially informed of the execution and two of his daughters issued a statement afterwards saying they were "deeply shocked, saddened, disappointed and outraged".
"We, the family, were not allowed to say goodbye. We were also denied the most fundamental and universal right of information about what was happening with our father. Throughout these four years since our father's arrest, the family was kept in the dark."
Europeans condemn, Chinese defensive
Austrian foreign minister Ursula Plassnik condemned the "cold-hearted and inhuman approach taken by the Chinese judiciary” in the case, and extended her condolences to his family.
"The fact that the execution was abruptly carried out on the day of the human rights dialogue between the EU and China emphasizes the ruthlessness and coldness with which this case was handled," she said.
China was stung into defending the evidence against Wo and the conduct of his trial, issuing several statements in the week after the execution and publishing detailed allegations against him in state-run media.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Wo was convicted after a "just and fair trial" and Europen criticism was "a direct interference in China's judicial sovereignty".
According to Xinhua, Qin Gang said all citizens were equal before the law, and Wo could not be made an exception "simply because he has foreign relatives".
Mental illness claims over Yang Jia
Unemployed Shanghai man Yang Jia, 28, was executed on 26 November for killing six police officers with a knife in a 1 July attack on Shanghai's Zhabei district police station.
He was convicted of premeditated murder after a closed trial and sentenced to death on 1 September by Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.
The Shanghai Higher People's Court rejected his appeal against the death sentence on 20 October.
The Supreme People's Court approved his death sentence on 21 November, five days before he was shot.
Some reports said he was taking revenge on police for beating him in custody in October 2007, after he was arrested for riding an unlicensed bicycle and accused of stealing it.
Chinese media reports referred to claims he had unsuccessfully sued police for "psychological distress" over his interrogation, but only international reports referred to the allegations of ill-treatment by police.
Yang's lawyers argued at his trial and appeal hearings that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of the attack, but the court ruled he was mentally competent at the time.
His case generated relatively widespread discussion within China, and conflicting reports from his father and local lawyers regarding his legal representation.
Ant scammer executed
Wang Zhendong, general manager of a fake scheme to breed ants, was executed for fraud on 26 November in Liaoning Province, northeast China.
Fifteen other company managers were jailed for between five and 10 years by the Yingkou Intermediate People's Court last February.
Xinhua reported that investors lost 3 billion yuan (417 million U.S. dollars) in the scam between 2002 and 2005.
The report said more than 10,000 joined the scheme to breed ants to make liquor, herbal remedies and aphrodisiacs, which Wang promised would earn returns of 35 to 60 per cent.
The AFP newsagency said some small investors lost their life savings in the racket.
"Fake investments and pyramid investment schemes have become common during China's transition from a planned economy to a free market," AFP said.
"Chinese leaders have tried to eradicate the scams, fearing widespread losses could add to already percolating social unrest."
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Pakistan's mixed signals on death penalty
Two human rights organisations have urged the government of Pakistan to suspend executions while it considers a proposal to commute all death sentences.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) asked the government to ensure no-one was executed while the constitutionality of the proposal was considered by the Supreme Court.
In an open letter to the prime minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, they "welcomed this initiative as a historical breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty" but expressed concern that prisoners could still be hanged while it was being examined.
On 21 June, the prime minister announced the government would recommend to president Pervez Musharraf that all current death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government tabled a written statement in the national assembly on 21 November confirming the Law Ministry was considering the proposal.
The government was also reportedly reviewing laws relating to various capital offences, including laws for anti-terrorism, rape and gang rape, to examine any amendments that could be made consistent with Islamic principles.
Amnesty International reported on 31 October that 15 people had been executed since the prime minister's June announcement.
Review, but expansion
Despite the June announcement and the review, the government of Pakistan has given mixed signals on the death penalty recently with the announcement that the scope of the death penalty would be expanded to include 'cyber-terrorism' offences.
President Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence.
According to an AFP report, the ordinance would provide that: "Whoever commits the offence of cyber-terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
The report said the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, which had yet to be approved by parliament, covered crimes that used computers or other electronic devices to threaten national security.
It would apply to Pakistanis and foreigners living in the country and abroad.
The HRCP criticised the proposal, noting that "under customary international human rights law, the death penalty is accepted only in very rare circumstances -- including the most extreme nature of crime carried out with the use of lethal weapons".
It said the law would be seen as "an oppressive law unless the punishments are proportionate to the crime and do not involve the death penalty".
"The present legal system in Pakistan does not guarantee due process and therefore the imposition of the death would only add to the miscarriage of justice suffered by thousands of people executed by the State," the organisation said in a statement.
State of justice
The open letter, by HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir and FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen said the Supreme Court had intervened to review the constitutionality of the proposal in light of the in light of the country's Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
The organisations argued that the law relating to Qisas and Diyat in effect withdrew the state -- and therefore the rule of law -- from deciding the punishment for crimes such as manslaughter and murder.
Instead the victim’s heirs determined the punishment, including the consideration of any pardon or compensation.
"FIDH and HRCP have repeatedly asked for a profound reform of the Qisas and Diyat Law because it de facto amounts to a privatisation of justice, as the offences of physical injury, manslaughter and murder are no longer offences to the state, but are considered a dealing between two private parties," the letter said.
"The State withdraws from one of its main responsibilities, as it no longer is the guardian of the rule of law through the exercise of justice.
"In addition, under this law, pardoning a condemned prisoner in case of murder rests solely with the heirs of the victim, rather than with the President, contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
"Indeed, under this ordinance, passed as a law in 1997, the aggrieved party is given precedence to choose the penalty for the culprit. Under Islamic law, the punishment can either be in the form of qisas (equal or similar punishment for the crime committed) or diyat (compensation payable to the victim's legal heirs)."
Pakistan has one of the largest death row populations in the world, with about 7,000 people believed to be living under sentence of death.
World Day appeal
The HRCP issued a statement on the World Day Against Death Penalty (10 October) noting "that the systematic and generalized application of death penalty had not led to an improvement of the law and order in the country".
"It is ironic that while Pakistan has one of the highest rates of conviction to capital punishment in the world with around 7,000 convicts on the death row in Pakistan today, yet its law and order is alarmingly dismal," the organisation said.
On the contrary, "[t]he massive application of death penalty has not strengthened the situation of law and order in the country".
"The HRCP argued that the death penalty was discriminatory, unfair and utterly inefficient and must be abandoned in accordance with the international human rights law."
Related stories:
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system -- 12 October 2006
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) asked the government to ensure no-one was executed while the constitutionality of the proposal was considered by the Supreme Court.
In an open letter to the prime minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, they "welcomed this initiative as a historical breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty" but expressed concern that prisoners could still be hanged while it was being examined.
On 21 June, the prime minister announced the government would recommend to president Pervez Musharraf that all current death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government tabled a written statement in the national assembly on 21 November confirming the Law Ministry was considering the proposal.
The government was also reportedly reviewing laws relating to various capital offences, including laws for anti-terrorism, rape and gang rape, to examine any amendments that could be made consistent with Islamic principles.
Amnesty International reported on 31 October that 15 people had been executed since the prime minister's June announcement.
Review, but expansion
Despite the June announcement and the review, the government of Pakistan has given mixed signals on the death penalty recently with the announcement that the scope of the death penalty would be expanded to include 'cyber-terrorism' offences.
President Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence.
According to an AFP report, the ordinance would provide that: "Whoever commits the offence of cyber-terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
The report said the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, which had yet to be approved by parliament, covered crimes that used computers or other electronic devices to threaten national security.
It would apply to Pakistanis and foreigners living in the country and abroad.
The HRCP criticised the proposal, noting that "under customary international human rights law, the death penalty is accepted only in very rare circumstances -- including the most extreme nature of crime carried out with the use of lethal weapons".
It said the law would be seen as "an oppressive law unless the punishments are proportionate to the crime and do not involve the death penalty".
"The present legal system in Pakistan does not guarantee due process and therefore the imposition of the death would only add to the miscarriage of justice suffered by thousands of people executed by the State," the organisation said in a statement.
State of justice
The open letter, by HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir and FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen said the Supreme Court had intervened to review the constitutionality of the proposal in light of the in light of the country's Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
The organisations argued that the law relating to Qisas and Diyat in effect withdrew the state -- and therefore the rule of law -- from deciding the punishment for crimes such as manslaughter and murder.
Instead the victim’s heirs determined the punishment, including the consideration of any pardon or compensation.
"FIDH and HRCP have repeatedly asked for a profound reform of the Qisas and Diyat Law because it de facto amounts to a privatisation of justice, as the offences of physical injury, manslaughter and murder are no longer offences to the state, but are considered a dealing between two private parties," the letter said.
"The State withdraws from one of its main responsibilities, as it no longer is the guardian of the rule of law through the exercise of justice.
"In addition, under this law, pardoning a condemned prisoner in case of murder rests solely with the heirs of the victim, rather than with the President, contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
"Indeed, under this ordinance, passed as a law in 1997, the aggrieved party is given precedence to choose the penalty for the culprit. Under Islamic law, the punishment can either be in the form of qisas (equal or similar punishment for the crime committed) or diyat (compensation payable to the victim's legal heirs)."
Pakistan has one of the largest death row populations in the world, with about 7,000 people believed to be living under sentence of death.
World Day appeal
The HRCP issued a statement on the World Day Against Death Penalty (10 October) noting "that the systematic and generalized application of death penalty had not led to an improvement of the law and order in the country".
"It is ironic that while Pakistan has one of the highest rates of conviction to capital punishment in the world with around 7,000 convicts on the death row in Pakistan today, yet its law and order is alarmingly dismal," the organisation said.
On the contrary, "[t]he massive application of death penalty has not strengthened the situation of law and order in the country".
"The HRCP argued that the death penalty was discriminatory, unfair and utterly inefficient and must be abandoned in accordance with the international human rights law."
Related stories:
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system -- 12 October 2006
Monday, 24 November 2008
Indonesia: Five more set to die
Indonesia plans to execute five people before the end of this year, including a Nigerian convicted of drug offences.
According to a report by The Jakarta Post, assistant attorney general for general crimes Abdul Hakim Ritonga said the remaining four were Indonesians.
The newspaper said the executions would be carried out on Nusakambangan Island
Five executions have been carried out on the island since June, with two Nigerians shot for drug trafficking and three Indonesians for terrorism offences.
Assistant attorney general for general crimes Abdul Hakim Ritonga said on 14 November that there were 92 prisoners on death row in Indonesia, although they were at varying stages of their appeals and applications for presidential clemency.
Some 14 had appealed to the president for clemency, 38 had filed judicial reviews and the rest were undecided about their next courses of action.
"The death sentences of the 92 convicts have been declared legally binding and are pending administrative procedures [before they are carried out]," he said.
Bonaventura Daulat Nainggolansaid, a spokesman for the attorney general, said in August that 39 convicted drug traffickers would be executed by the end of 2009, including foreign nationals.
"The president has rejected clemency for 39 people, so the next stage for them is execution," said Indradi Thanos, head of the national police drugs unit, according to a Reuters report.
Related stories:
Indonesia executes Islamist terrorists -- 9 November 2008
Firing squad: Seven minutes to die -- 26 August 2008
Indonesia: More to die for drugs -- 12 August 2008
Indonesia: Record number executed in four weeks -- 20 July 2008
Indonesia: Drug offenders executed, more to come -- 29 June 2008
Drug penalty violates international law -- 06 May 2007
According to a report by The Jakarta Post, assistant attorney general for general crimes Abdul Hakim Ritonga said the remaining four were Indonesians.
The newspaper said the executions would be carried out on Nusakambangan Island
Five executions have been carried out on the island since June, with two Nigerians shot for drug trafficking and three Indonesians for terrorism offences.
Assistant attorney general for general crimes Abdul Hakim Ritonga said on 14 November that there were 92 prisoners on death row in Indonesia, although they were at varying stages of their appeals and applications for presidential clemency.
Some 14 had appealed to the president for clemency, 38 had filed judicial reviews and the rest were undecided about their next courses of action.
"The death sentences of the 92 convicts have been declared legally binding and are pending administrative procedures [before they are carried out]," he said.
Bonaventura Daulat Nainggolansaid, a spokesman for the attorney general, said in August that 39 convicted drug traffickers would be executed by the end of 2009, including foreign nationals.
"The president has rejected clemency for 39 people, so the next stage for them is execution," said Indradi Thanos, head of the national police drugs unit, according to a Reuters report.
Related stories:
Indonesia executes Islamist terrorists -- 9 November 2008
Firing squad: Seven minutes to die -- 26 August 2008
Indonesia: More to die for drugs -- 12 August 2008
Indonesia: Record number executed in four weeks -- 20 July 2008
Indonesia: Drug offenders executed, more to come -- 29 June 2008
Drug penalty violates international law -- 06 May 2007
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Viet Nam: Death penalty reduction debated
Deputies in Viet Nam's national assembly (NA) have debated a proposal to reduce the number of capital crimes, including for corruption, bribery and producing fake drugs.
According to Thanh Nien News, the current session of the NA considered an amended draft criminal code, which would see the death sentence removed from 17 of the current 29 capital offences.
NA deputies spoke against removing the death penalty for these offences at sittings on 7 November.
"It is necessary to retain death sentences for embezzlement and bribery to prevent people from engaging in the crimes, as our fight against corruption is now very fierce," said Nguyen Dang Trung, NA deputy and Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.
Earlier in the week, judicial committee chairwoman Le Thi Thu Ba said the death penalty was necessary for bribery and corruption because they were "a national disaster".
The Thanh Nien report said deputies told the NA the death penalty should not be removed from crimes such as manufacturing counterfeit food and pharmaceutical products, because "it could affect human life on a large scale, hinder smooth economic growth and cause other serious consequences".
Other deputies argued it would not be reasonable to remove the death sentence for crimes against humanity and national security, when an offender could be executed for killing one person.
The reported comments left open the possibility that the death penalty could be removed for other offences on the proposed list, including for rape, fraud, smuggling and organising the illegal use of drugs.
"Developmental" need to kill
Presenters at a seminar in October argued the death penalty was necessary to deal with "extremely dangerous crimes", particularly given the country's current stage of development.
The VNA news service reported the workshop, organised by Vietnam's Institute of State and Law and Germany's KAS Institute, discussed the use of the death penalty and the possibility of abolition.
It reported that unnamed legal experts pointed to "the experiences of some countries at a similar developmental level to Vietnam" to argue the death penalty was needed to deter potential criminals against "certain crimes".
"They agreed that the abolition of the death penalty should follow a road map with specific steps depending on certain social conditions," the report said.
This is similar to the argument used by senior officials in China, who have argued the county needed to achieve a certain level of development before it could abolish the death penalty.
Notwithstanding this argument, the officials have been unable to point to evidence that the death penalty provides a greater degree of deterrence than other, less severe, punishments.
Ministry proposal
Vietnamese media reported in July that the Ministry of Public Security recommended the death penalty be abolished for 12 crimes, including smuggling, trading in false products and hijacking (ADP story here).
VietNamNet reported a recommendation would be made to the National Assembly to amend the Criminal Code to limit the penalty to what the paper described as "only to those committing the most heinous crimes and people considered to be a serious danger to the community and the nation's security".
"The aim of the amendment is to make the country’s criminal code more compliant with world trends to humanise laws and completely abolish the death penalty," said Nguyen Ngoc Anh, head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Public Security.
In 1999, the number of offences attracting a death sentence was reduced from 44 to 29 offences.
VietNamNet said 116 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 95 in 2007, although it did not confirm how many people were actually executed.
The July VietNamNet report said the full list included: appropriating property by fraud; smuggling; producing and trading fake food and medical products; being involved in producing, storing and circulating counterfeit money, bonds and cheques; organising the illegal use of drugs; hijacking aeroplanes or ships; corruption; taking and giving bribes; destroying army weapons or technical equipment; being involved in an invasion; anti-human crimes and those convicted of war crimes.
Human rights call
On 10 November Amnesty International encouraged Vietnamese authorities to "carry out the proposed reforms and introduce a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".
It said Vietname authorities did not allow international standards for fair trials to be followed in practice.
"Legal counsel is often assigned to defendants at the last minute, allowing little pre-trial preparation," the organisation said.
"The defence is not always allowed to call or question witnesses, and private consultation with counsel may be limited.
"In many cases, all the defence counsel can do is plead for clemency."
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Reduction in death penalty offences? -- 23 July 2008
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November 2006
According to Thanh Nien News, the current session of the NA considered an amended draft criminal code, which would see the death sentence removed from 17 of the current 29 capital offences.
NA deputies spoke against removing the death penalty for these offences at sittings on 7 November.
"It is necessary to retain death sentences for embezzlement and bribery to prevent people from engaging in the crimes, as our fight against corruption is now very fierce," said Nguyen Dang Trung, NA deputy and Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.
Earlier in the week, judicial committee chairwoman Le Thi Thu Ba said the death penalty was necessary for bribery and corruption because they were "a national disaster".
The Thanh Nien report said deputies told the NA the death penalty should not be removed from crimes such as manufacturing counterfeit food and pharmaceutical products, because "it could affect human life on a large scale, hinder smooth economic growth and cause other serious consequences".
Other deputies argued it would not be reasonable to remove the death sentence for crimes against humanity and national security, when an offender could be executed for killing one person.
The reported comments left open the possibility that the death penalty could be removed for other offences on the proposed list, including for rape, fraud, smuggling and organising the illegal use of drugs.
"Developmental" need to kill
Presenters at a seminar in October argued the death penalty was necessary to deal with "extremely dangerous crimes", particularly given the country's current stage of development.
The VNA news service reported the workshop, organised by Vietnam's Institute of State and Law and Germany's KAS Institute, discussed the use of the death penalty and the possibility of abolition.
It reported that unnamed legal experts pointed to "the experiences of some countries at a similar developmental level to Vietnam" to argue the death penalty was needed to deter potential criminals against "certain crimes".
"They agreed that the abolition of the death penalty should follow a road map with specific steps depending on certain social conditions," the report said.
This is similar to the argument used by senior officials in China, who have argued the county needed to achieve a certain level of development before it could abolish the death penalty.
Notwithstanding this argument, the officials have been unable to point to evidence that the death penalty provides a greater degree of deterrence than other, less severe, punishments.
Ministry proposal
Vietnamese media reported in July that the Ministry of Public Security recommended the death penalty be abolished for 12 crimes, including smuggling, trading in false products and hijacking (ADP story here).
VietNamNet reported a recommendation would be made to the National Assembly to amend the Criminal Code to limit the penalty to what the paper described as "only to those committing the most heinous crimes and people considered to be a serious danger to the community and the nation's security".
"The aim of the amendment is to make the country’s criminal code more compliant with world trends to humanise laws and completely abolish the death penalty," said Nguyen Ngoc Anh, head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Public Security.
In 1999, the number of offences attracting a death sentence was reduced from 44 to 29 offences.
VietNamNet said 116 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 95 in 2007, although it did not confirm how many people were actually executed.
The July VietNamNet report said the full list included: appropriating property by fraud; smuggling; producing and trading fake food and medical products; being involved in producing, storing and circulating counterfeit money, bonds and cheques; organising the illegal use of drugs; hijacking aeroplanes or ships; corruption; taking and giving bribes; destroying army weapons or technical equipment; being involved in an invasion; anti-human crimes and those convicted of war crimes.
Human rights call
On 10 November Amnesty International encouraged Vietnamese authorities to "carry out the proposed reforms and introduce a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".
It said Vietname authorities did not allow international standards for fair trials to be followed in practice.
"Legal counsel is often assigned to defendants at the last minute, allowing little pre-trial preparation," the organisation said.
"The defence is not always allowed to call or question witnesses, and private consultation with counsel may be limited.
"In many cases, all the defence counsel can do is plead for clemency."
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Reduction in death penalty offences? -- 23 July 2008
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November 2006
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Australia tries to reclaim principle
The Australian government has attempted to restore its credibility on the death penalty after the prime minister last month appeared to support the execution of the Bali bombers.
Ten days before the executions were carried out, prime minister Kevin Rudd said Australia was "universally opposed to the death penalty".
And hours after the three convicted terrorists were shot by firing squad, foreign minister Stephen Smith said Australia would support an upcoming moratorium resolution in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
However no senior member of the government has publicly said the men should not have been shot for the 2002 attacks which killed 88 Australians.
Lawyers acting for three Australians on death row in Indonesia criticised the government's silence on the executions, saying this selective approach would be detrimental to their clients' interests.
'Deserve the justice'
Rudd appeared to adopt his predecessor's double standards on the death penalty when he said on 2 October that they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them".
The following day he claimed the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesian justice system, but he would only say the government's policy was one of "general opposition" to the death penalty.
He was criticised for seeming to support the executions, and only speaking out against death sentences when Australian lives were at stake.
Media reports suggested government backbenchers later expressed concerns about the prime minister's equivocation on the issue.
With mounting speculation over the timing of the executions, Rudd was asked on Melbourne radio on 30 October a series of five questions about whether he approved the execution of terrorists, and the Bali bombers in particular.
His answers tried to tread a fine line by opposing the death penalty in the most general terms possible, while saying nothing that could be quoted as a direct criticism of the impending executions in Java.
He repeated that the government was "universally" opposed to the death penalty and twice said the government only intervened on behalf of Australian citizens.
He described the October 2002 attack as a "murderous, cowardly and callous act".
"But I’m not going to pretend to you ... that our policy on the death penalty has changed. It’s always been one of universal opposition."
Opposition -- but afterwards
Hours after the executions were carried out on 9 November, foreign minister Stephen Smith said the government would soon co-sponsor a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium.
"In the near future at the UN General Assembly we will be co-sponsoring a resolution calling effectively on a moratorium on capital punishment and that's been Australia's position for some considerable time," he said.
Some commentators reported this as a new development in Australian human rights policy in the wake of the executions. But in fact Australia has for many years co-sponsored UN resolutions opposing the death penalty, a fact which has not often been the subject of public discussion.
Smith did not say if Australia would do anything different at the UN in the coming weeks than last year, when it was one of 75 countries that co-sponsored the 18 December moratorium resolution.
Cautious welcome
Lawyers for the three Australians on death row in Indonesia welcomed Smith's comments, but criticised the government's silence on the latest executions.
Julian McMahon, part of the legal team advising Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, said he thought it "would have been better for us to stand up more clearly and speak more firmly and loudly in the region prior to the execution".
"To be pro-active if you like but the response after the execution has been exactly what I would have hoped for," he said.
"I just think that we should have been doing it consistently rather than just after the execution."
John North, who represents Scott Rush, said the government should consistently oppose the death penalty.
"They shouldn't try and cherry pick those that should be executed and those that should not," he said.
In another interview he said: "When the death penalty is hanging over the heads of young Australians there is no room for ambivalence."
Ten days before the executions were carried out, prime minister Kevin Rudd said Australia was "universally opposed to the death penalty".
And hours after the three convicted terrorists were shot by firing squad, foreign minister Stephen Smith said Australia would support an upcoming moratorium resolution in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
However no senior member of the government has publicly said the men should not have been shot for the 2002 attacks which killed 88 Australians.
Lawyers acting for three Australians on death row in Indonesia criticised the government's silence on the executions, saying this selective approach would be detrimental to their clients' interests.
'Deserve the justice'
Rudd appeared to adopt his predecessor's double standards on the death penalty when he said on 2 October that they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them".
The following day he claimed the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesian justice system, but he would only say the government's policy was one of "general opposition" to the death penalty.
He was criticised for seeming to support the executions, and only speaking out against death sentences when Australian lives were at stake.
Media reports suggested government backbenchers later expressed concerns about the prime minister's equivocation on the issue.
With mounting speculation over the timing of the executions, Rudd was asked on Melbourne radio on 30 October a series of five questions about whether he approved the execution of terrorists, and the Bali bombers in particular.
His answers tried to tread a fine line by opposing the death penalty in the most general terms possible, while saying nothing that could be quoted as a direct criticism of the impending executions in Java.
He repeated that the government was "universally" opposed to the death penalty and twice said the government only intervened on behalf of Australian citizens.
He described the October 2002 attack as a "murderous, cowardly and callous act".
"But I’m not going to pretend to you ... that our policy on the death penalty has changed. It’s always been one of universal opposition."
Opposition -- but afterwards
Hours after the executions were carried out on 9 November, foreign minister Stephen Smith said the government would soon co-sponsor a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium.
"In the near future at the UN General Assembly we will be co-sponsoring a resolution calling effectively on a moratorium on capital punishment and that's been Australia's position for some considerable time," he said.
Some commentators reported this as a new development in Australian human rights policy in the wake of the executions. But in fact Australia has for many years co-sponsored UN resolutions opposing the death penalty, a fact which has not often been the subject of public discussion.
Smith did not say if Australia would do anything different at the UN in the coming weeks than last year, when it was one of 75 countries that co-sponsored the 18 December moratorium resolution.
Cautious welcome
Lawyers for the three Australians on death row in Indonesia welcomed Smith's comments, but criticised the government's silence on the latest executions.
Julian McMahon, part of the legal team advising Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, said he thought it "would have been better for us to stand up more clearly and speak more firmly and loudly in the region prior to the execution".
"To be pro-active if you like but the response after the execution has been exactly what I would have hoped for," he said.
"I just think that we should have been doing it consistently rather than just after the execution."
John North, who represents Scott Rush, said the government should consistently oppose the death penalty.
"They shouldn't try and cherry pick those that should be executed and those that should not," he said.
In another interview he said: "When the death penalty is hanging over the heads of young Australians there is no room for ambivalence."
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Indonesia executes Islamist terrorists
Indonesian firing squads killed three men for terrorism offences shortly after midnight this morning.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra were shot simultaneously by separate firing squads for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing.
"At 12.15am, the convicts ... were executed by shooting and followed up with an autopsy," said Jasman Pandjaitan, a spokesman for Indonesia's attorney general's office, according to a report in The Australian.
"They have been stated as dead. At this moment the bodies are being washed by the family."
They were executed on Nusakambangan Island in Central Java, near the high security prison where they had been held.
Their bodies were taken to the mainland and then flown by helicopter to their home villages in East and West Java. Police struggled to maintain order when the bodies were greeted by family and hundreds of supporters for Muslim burials.
Last night's events brought to a head weeks of feverish speculation, fuelled by rumours the executions were imminent, contradictory statements from government officials and intense coverage by foreign journalists.
At different times the delays were attributed to a lack of bureaucratic coordination, successive nights of rain or claims the government was unwilling to provoke Islamic extremists by carrying out the sentences.
The three men were reportedly frustrated at the delays and keen for their "martyrdom" to proceed.
The executions bring to ten the number of people known to have been put to death in Indonesia in the past five months. This represents a dramatic increase in the country's use of the death penalty when compared with the nine people executed in the four years to 2007.
Some victims oppose death
The 2002 bombings of two Bali nightclubs killed 202 people and injured 88, leaving many with severe burns.
While some victims welcomed news of the executions, others remained opposed the death penalty.
Australian Barbara Hackett, whose daughter Kathy Salvatori was killed in the bombings, said she did not believe in the death penalty, according to one report.
"It can't bring back Kathy or the other 201 victims," she said.
Georgia Lysaght, who lost her older brother Scott, said the executions would not bring him back.
"The fact that it has happened doesn't bring Scott back, it doesn't change what's happened, it doesn't bring any sense of closure," she said.
"It doesn't make me feel that justice has been served. The only just thing to do would to be able to see my brother again, and that is not going to happen."
According to a report in The Times, several UK families also spoke out against the death penalty for the convicted terrorists.
Susanna Miller, who lost her brother Dan, said: "The death penalty is an 18th-century punishment. My brother was a lawyer, he would have disapproved.
"Also, these men were low-level terrorists, the bigger ones are at large. They should have been given life sentences."
Maggie Stephens lost her 27 year-old son Neil Bowler in the bombings.
"By executing them we are doing to them what they did to us," she said.
Related stories:
Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers -- 02 November 2008
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali bombers: One week to live? -- 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra were shot simultaneously by separate firing squads for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing.
"At 12.15am, the convicts ... were executed by shooting and followed up with an autopsy," said Jasman Pandjaitan, a spokesman for Indonesia's attorney general's office, according to a report in The Australian.
"They have been stated as dead. At this moment the bodies are being washed by the family."
They were executed on Nusakambangan Island in Central Java, near the high security prison where they had been held.
Their bodies were taken to the mainland and then flown by helicopter to their home villages in East and West Java. Police struggled to maintain order when the bodies were greeted by family and hundreds of supporters for Muslim burials.
Last night's events brought to a head weeks of feverish speculation, fuelled by rumours the executions were imminent, contradictory statements from government officials and intense coverage by foreign journalists.
At different times the delays were attributed to a lack of bureaucratic coordination, successive nights of rain or claims the government was unwilling to provoke Islamic extremists by carrying out the sentences.
The three men were reportedly frustrated at the delays and keen for their "martyrdom" to proceed.
The executions bring to ten the number of people known to have been put to death in Indonesia in the past five months. This represents a dramatic increase in the country's use of the death penalty when compared with the nine people executed in the four years to 2007.
Some victims oppose death
The 2002 bombings of two Bali nightclubs killed 202 people and injured 88, leaving many with severe burns.
While some victims welcomed news of the executions, others remained opposed the death penalty.
Australian Barbara Hackett, whose daughter Kathy Salvatori was killed in the bombings, said she did not believe in the death penalty, according to one report.
"It can't bring back Kathy or the other 201 victims," she said.
Georgia Lysaght, who lost her older brother Scott, said the executions would not bring him back.
"The fact that it has happened doesn't bring Scott back, it doesn't change what's happened, it doesn't bring any sense of closure," she said.
"It doesn't make me feel that justice has been served. The only just thing to do would to be able to see my brother again, and that is not going to happen."
According to a report in The Times, several UK families also spoke out against the death penalty for the convicted terrorists.
Susanna Miller, who lost her brother Dan, said: "The death penalty is an 18th-century punishment. My brother was a lawyer, he would have disapproved.
"Also, these men were low-level terrorists, the bigger ones are at large. They should have been given life sentences."
Maggie Stephens lost her 27 year-old son Neil Bowler in the bombings.
"By executing them we are doing to them what they did to us," she said.
Related stories:
Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers -- 02 November 2008
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali bombers: One week to live? -- 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Saturday, 8 November 2008
ASEAN urged to promote abolition
An international human rights organisation has called on five Asian countries to use the mechanisms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to encourage abolition of the death penalty.
Souhayr Belhassen, president of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) wrote to all ASEAN members in October arguing the regional organisation "has a role to play to promote the abolition of the death penalty in the region".
She said the abolition of the death penalty would serve ASEAN's stated aims, including to "accelerate... social progress in the region" and to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person".
The letter called on the five member states that had abolished the death penalty in practice -- Cambodia, the Philippines, Myanmar, Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR -- to place the issue of the death penalty on the ASEAN agenda.
It urged these countries "to use the various mechanisms and forums of ASEAN to establish a dialogue on the death sentence with those member States who continue executions, in the interest of fulfilling the ASEAN declaration of principles integrated in the preamble of the ASEAN Charter".
Belhassen expressed FIDH's "deep concern" that five member states still carried out executions, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
She also highlighted the difficulty compiling statistics about the death penalty in the region, since a number of ASEAN member states kept this information a state secret, and the wide range of offences for which is was applied, including non-violent crimes.
"FIDH expresses deep concern with the number of offenses punishable by death in certain member States. In the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for example, 29 crimes carry a death sentence, some of which include drug trafficking, theft, and various economic crimes," she wrote.
"FIDH calls on the Heads of State and Governments of ASEAN to ensure that the abolition of the death penalty is made a priority for ASEAN, particularly within the 'ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community'.
"ASEAN should work to ensure that secrecy surrounding death sentences in these countries is lifted in accordance with the 2006 report of Phillip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, which stated that 'those countries who maintain executions have a clear obligation to disclose the details of their application of the penalty'."
The member states of ASEAN are: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Viet Nam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Cambodia.
Souhayr Belhassen, president of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) wrote to all ASEAN members in October arguing the regional organisation "has a role to play to promote the abolition of the death penalty in the region".
She said the abolition of the death penalty would serve ASEAN's stated aims, including to "accelerate... social progress in the region" and to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person".
The letter called on the five member states that had abolished the death penalty in practice -- Cambodia, the Philippines, Myanmar, Brunei Darussalam and Lao PDR -- to place the issue of the death penalty on the ASEAN agenda.
It urged these countries "to use the various mechanisms and forums of ASEAN to establish a dialogue on the death sentence with those member States who continue executions, in the interest of fulfilling the ASEAN declaration of principles integrated in the preamble of the ASEAN Charter".
Belhassen expressed FIDH's "deep concern" that five member states still carried out executions, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
She also highlighted the difficulty compiling statistics about the death penalty in the region, since a number of ASEAN member states kept this information a state secret, and the wide range of offences for which is was applied, including non-violent crimes.
"FIDH expresses deep concern with the number of offenses punishable by death in certain member States. In the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for example, 29 crimes carry a death sentence, some of which include drug trafficking, theft, and various economic crimes," she wrote.
"FIDH calls on the Heads of State and Governments of ASEAN to ensure that the abolition of the death penalty is made a priority for ASEAN, particularly within the 'ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community'.
"ASEAN should work to ensure that secrecy surrounding death sentences in these countries is lifted in accordance with the 2006 report of Phillip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, which stated that 'those countries who maintain executions have a clear obligation to disclose the details of their application of the penalty'."
The member states of ASEAN are: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Viet Nam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Cambodia.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Indonesia: Human rights appeals for bombers
Two international human rights organisations have called on the Indonesian government to grant clemency to the three Bali bombers, who may be killed by firing squad as early as tonight.
Indonesian human rights organisations have also protested against the country's use of the death penalty.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) this week wrote to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urging him "in the strongest terms" to halt the executions [27 Oct].
Amnesty International (AI) released a statement opposing the executions and calling on Indonesia to "draw a line under its policy of escalating executions" and establish a moratorium [31 Oct].
Seven people have been executed in Indonesia since June 2008, five for murder and two for drug offences.
Illegal, against the trend
Human Rights Watch argued in its letter that the three death sentences were a breach of international human rights standards, as well as running counter to an international trend away from the death penalty.
"Rather than allow the executions to go forward, you should commute the men’s sentences to life in prison," wrote Joanne Mariner Elaine Pearson, deputy director of the organisation's terrorism and counterterrorism Asia division.
The organisation was particularly critical that the three men were sentenced to death under special counter-terrorism legislation enacted after the bombing, when retroactive criminal laws are prohibited under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said Human Rights Watch "strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality".
"We also note that there is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty serves as a more effective deterrent against criminal activity than other forms of punishment."
Human Rights Watch said it deplored acts of terrorism and recognised "the government's duty to bring to justice persons responsible for such serious crimes".
"We condemn the 2002 Bali bombings as horrific and inexcusable attacks, and believe that the perpetrators should be held to account," the letter said.
"We strongly believe, however, that the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction, particularly in this instance."
The human rights organisation was also concerned that Indonesia retained and used the death penalty "contrary to the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty", and had recently increased the rate of executions.
Simply more violations
The latest statement from Amnesty International said the executions would add further human rights violations to the violation of the original attacks.
"While the Bali attacks were a horrific atrocity, Amnesty International firmly believes that to continue the cycle of violence through state sanctioned killing will not bring redress for the victims, and furthermore answers the violation of human rights with further violations," it said.
While there was "no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters future criminal acts", Amnesty International said these executions "may only serve to perpetuate such atrocities".
"There is a serious risk that the executions will turn the bombers from murderers to martyrs, whose memories will be used to increase support and recruitment to their cause."
It said the death penalty was the ultimate denial of human rights, and it said unequivocally that it was opposed to it "in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".
This was instead an opportunity for "Indonesia to draw a line under its policy of escalating executions and to establish an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition".
The organisation issued a revised action appeal on 16 October 2008, calling for its supporters to appeal to the Indonesian government for all death sentences to be commuted, including those imposed on the three bombers.
It also asked people to express concern that the law under which the three were convicted was applied retrospectively, "violating international law and the Indonesian Constitution".
Related stories:
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Indonesian human rights organisations have also protested against the country's use of the death penalty.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) this week wrote to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urging him "in the strongest terms" to halt the executions [27 Oct].
Amnesty International (AI) released a statement opposing the executions and calling on Indonesia to "draw a line under its policy of escalating executions" and establish a moratorium [31 Oct].
Seven people have been executed in Indonesia since June 2008, five for murder and two for drug offences.
Illegal, against the trend
Human Rights Watch argued in its letter that the three death sentences were a breach of international human rights standards, as well as running counter to an international trend away from the death penalty.
"Rather than allow the executions to go forward, you should commute the men’s sentences to life in prison," wrote Joanne Mariner Elaine Pearson, deputy director of the organisation's terrorism and counterterrorism Asia division.
The organisation was particularly critical that the three men were sentenced to death under special counter-terrorism legislation enacted after the bombing, when retroactive criminal laws are prohibited under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said Human Rights Watch "strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty and finality".
"We also note that there is no clear evidence that the application of the death penalty serves as a more effective deterrent against criminal activity than other forms of punishment."
Human Rights Watch said it deplored acts of terrorism and recognised "the government's duty to bring to justice persons responsible for such serious crimes".
"We condemn the 2002 Bali bombings as horrific and inexcusable attacks, and believe that the perpetrators should be held to account," the letter said.
"We strongly believe, however, that the death penalty is not an appropriate sanction, particularly in this instance."
The human rights organisation was also concerned that Indonesia retained and used the death penalty "contrary to the global trend toward the abolition of the death penalty", and had recently increased the rate of executions.
Simply more violations
The latest statement from Amnesty International said the executions would add further human rights violations to the violation of the original attacks.
"While the Bali attacks were a horrific atrocity, Amnesty International firmly believes that to continue the cycle of violence through state sanctioned killing will not bring redress for the victims, and furthermore answers the violation of human rights with further violations," it said.
While there was "no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters future criminal acts", Amnesty International said these executions "may only serve to perpetuate such atrocities".
"There is a serious risk that the executions will turn the bombers from murderers to martyrs, whose memories will be used to increase support and recruitment to their cause."
It said the death penalty was the ultimate denial of human rights, and it said unequivocally that it was opposed to it "in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".
This was instead an opportunity for "Indonesia to draw a line under its policy of escalating executions and to establish an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition".
The organisation issued a revised action appeal on 16 October 2008, calling for its supporters to appeal to the Indonesian government for all death sentences to be commuted, including those imposed on the three bombers.
It also asked people to express concern that the law under which the three were convicted was applied retrospectively, "violating international law and the Indonesian Constitution".
Related stories:
Execution wrong - even for terrorists -- 31 October 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Friday, 31 October 2008
Execution wrong - even for terrorists
Comment by Tim Goodwin
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.
After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.
Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.
Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.
But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?
Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.
Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.
Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.
Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.
The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.
When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.
The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.
The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.
For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.
Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.
The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.
We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.
After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.
Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.
Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.
But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?
Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.
Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.
Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.
Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.
The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.
When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.
The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.
The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.
For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.
Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.
The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.
We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
