Source: Death Penalty Information Center (23 March 2022)
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/report-fewer-nations-using-the-death-penalty-for-drug-offenses-but-executions-and-secrecy-are-up-in-those-that-do
Fewer countries are using the death penalty for drug offenses, but according to a new global report, executions increased in those that did and took place in proceedings characterized by authoritarianism and secrecy.
In its eleventh annual report on The Death Penalty for Drug Offenses: Global Overview 2021, released mid-March 2021, the international drug monitor Harm Reduction International (HRI) found that eight “high application” nations contributed to an increase in known death sentences and executions. “The group of countries actively resorting to capital punishment as a central tool of drug control is shrinking, but is also more and more characterized by opacity and secrecy, if not outright censorship,” HRI wrote.
To be classified as “high application” by HRI, a country must have carried out an execution or imposed at least ten death sentences for non-violent drug offenses within the past five years. HRI classified Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam as high application nations.
HRI confirmed at least 132 executions for drug offenses in 2021, an increase of 336% from the number of known drug executions in 2020. That total, however, “is likely to represent only a fraction of all drug-related executions carried out globally,” the group warned, because the secrecy shrouding the death penalty in countries such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam makes it impossible to track their execution practices.
HRI also reported “[a] minimum of 237 death sentences for drug crimes … in at least 16 countries,” representing an increase of 11.3% from 2020 and 29.5% from 2019. About ten percent of those death sentences were imposed on foreign nationals. “Individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds, women, and members of vulnerable groups remain disproportionately affected by the imposition of the death penalty for drug offences,” the report said.
“Executions were confirmed to have taken place in Iran and China, and were likely carried out in Vietnam and North Korea,” HRI reported. HRI confirmed at least one drug-related execution in China but reported the country was believed to have conducted more than a thousand executions in 2021. HRI also confirmed 131 executions for drug offenses in Iran.
The huge increase in executions for drug offenses in Iran — up from 25 in 2020 — more than offset the decline in confirmed drug-related executions in Saudi Arabia following a moratorium on executions for drug offenses announced by the Kingdom in 2020. Saudi drug executions fell from 84 in 2019 to zero in 2021, although the Kingdom is still sentencing people to death for drug offenses and has denied drug offenders on death row retrials or commutations, HRI said. Singapore, HRI reported, carried out no drug executions for the second consecutive year.
Indonesia imposed 89 death sentences for drug offenses in 2021, the most confirmed sentences of any nation. HRI confirmed from media and court reports that Vietnam imposed at least 87 death sentences for drug crimes in 2021, although the actual total remains a state secret. HRI was unable to confirm death-sentencing numbers from China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
HRI reported that more than 3,000 people are confirmed to be on death rows across the globe for drug offenses, with drug death sentences increasing at a faster rate than death sentences for other offenses. The report said that women who are sentenced to death and executed are disproportionally likely to have been convicted of drug offenses. Eight-six of the 164 women executed in Iran between 2010 and October 2021 had been convicted of drug offenses, the report said, at least five of whom were put to death in 2021.
Use of the death penalty for non-violent drug offenses has long been recognized as a violation of international law.
Tuesday 29 March 2022
Tuesday 15 March 2022
Saudi Arabia executes 81 in one day for terror offences
Source: Straits Times (12 March 2022)
All had been "found guilty of committing multiple heinous crimes", the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported, saying they included convicts linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group, or to Al-Qaeda, Yemen's Huthi rebel forces or "other terrorist organisations".
They had been plotting attacks on vital economic sites, or had targeted or had killed members of the security forces, or had smuggled weapons into the country, the SPA added.
Of the 81 people, 73 were Saudi citizens, seven were Yemeni and one was a Syrian national.
SPA said all those executed were tried in Saudi courts, with trials overseen by 13 judges over three separate stages for each individual.
The wealthy Gulf country has one of the world's highest execution rates.
Saturday's announcement marks the kingdom's highest number of recorded executions in one day, and more than the total of 69 executions in all of 2021.
The Singapore lawyer who defends those facing the gallows
Source: Al Jazeera (7 March 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/7/death-penalty-the-singapore-lawyer
Singapore is known for being tough on crime, with some of the harshest punishments in the world, including a mandatory death sentence for certain offences, including drug-related crimes.
One lawyer, M Ravi, has been taking on the state in high-profile cases for decades.
Ravi has been diagnosed as bipolar and is currently suspended from practising law on mental health grounds, but he has been heavily involved in the case of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian man with a learning disability found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to death.
A last-minute appeal that attracted worldwide attention gave Nagaenthran a reprieve, and he contracted COVID-19 in November of last year, further delaying the process.
Singapore’s Court of Appeal heard his case on March 1, and has reserved judgement until an undisclosed date.
Ravi spoke to Al Jazeera about why he takes on such challenging cases. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Al Jazeera: You are one of the few lawyers involved in the defence of people facing the death penalty. Why do you take on such cases?
M Ravi: My original focus was mainly commercial and corporate cases, looking at intellectual property, technology, that kind of stuff.
In 2003, when a Malaysian boy Vignes Mourthi was facing the death penalty [for smuggling 27 grams of heroin into the country], I mounted a last-minute constitutional challenge at the request of the former opposition leader in Singapore, Mr J B Jeyaretnam. He’s almost like a Nelson Mandela of Singapore.
On the eve of the execution, I asked the then Chief Justice if we could reopen this case. He said that the case had run its course and there was little I could do.
I then asked [that] if I could show that he was innocent, would Mourthi still be hanged? He said yes. That was a horrifying statement. I saw the way the poor and the oppressed were being treated. It brought me to fight against the death penalty in Singapore.
Al Jazeera: The Law Society of Singapore has suspended you from practising law on psychiatric grounds following your diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What has happened?
M Ravi: As I was preparing to argue Nagaenthran’s appeal, my doctor said suddenly that I am unwell. And that’s it, the Law Society said I have to stop as the doctor found that I am unwell.
I’m still doing work, preparing bundles of papers. If I don’t do that, Nagaenthran will be in the gallows.
The psychiatrists that have spoken to me from around the world, and other people I have spoken to, said that I don’t need treatment and just need rest.
Of course I am frustrated. I was originally told by my doctor that I can still argue Nagaenthran’s case and my MC [medical note] should end on January 13. Then he extended it to March 13. And the court is not going to wait, the Attorney General is pressing that Nagaenthran’s case should go ahead and be rushed through.
Al Jazeera: What other challenges do you face when taking on these difficult cases, going up against the Singapore state?
M Ravi: The Law Society and the Attorney General have applied to the Court of Appeal to suspend me from practice – or even strike me off.
That’s because of a case in 2020, the case of Gobi Avedian. He was supposed to be executed, but I managed to stop it.
The authorities are extremely frustrated because I frustrated their scheme of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that this is the first miscarriage of justice case in Singapore.
In this case, the Court of Appeal said we have made a mistake. The question I asked the Attorney General is ‘What if I had not come to practice law in this case?’ Gobi would have been gone. I criticised the entire administration of the death penalty.
Then there is the media. They constantly say that I am mad. There is psychological harassment about my psychiatric condition.
Al Jazeera: Will Singapore ever get rid of the death penalty?
M Ravi: It will. Just look at the case of Yong Vui Kong. He was only 19 when he was caught [trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2007].
This boy was supposed to be executed and, on the eve of the execution, I filed to stop it.
It took three, four years, but finally the law was amended [Yong was spared]. The law now gives judges some discretion.
So there is a precursor to tell us that things can change. Singapore is ripe to repeal the death penalty, most countries in the Southeast Asia region don’t practise it. Philippines is a no, Myanmar no, Thailand no, Indonesia yes but still slow.
And now we have Richard Branson taking them on and telling other rich people about it.
I think they have no choice but to get rid of it.
Al Jazeera: How confident are you and your team of Nagaenthran’s appeal?
M Ravi: It’s a humungous amount of work. There are five Deputy Public Prosecutors, they are all at the top. Singapore finds a lot of resources to kill people.
I think I will be able to win. Five judges are [hearing] the case. If it’s a shut case and not serious and open, they wouldn’t even come.
Secondly, psychiatric prison experts from the UK and Australia have given their expert opinion to say that the methods used by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore are backwards. The tests are all wrong. The manner in which they are administered are very childish.
Singapore is known for being tough on crime, with some of the harshest punishments in the world, including a mandatory death sentence for certain offences, including drug-related crimes.
One lawyer, M Ravi, has been taking on the state in high-profile cases for decades.
Ravi has been diagnosed as bipolar and is currently suspended from practising law on mental health grounds, but he has been heavily involved in the case of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian man with a learning disability found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to death.
A last-minute appeal that attracted worldwide attention gave Nagaenthran a reprieve, and he contracted COVID-19 in November of last year, further delaying the process.
Singapore’s Court of Appeal heard his case on March 1, and has reserved judgement until an undisclosed date.
Ravi spoke to Al Jazeera about why he takes on such challenging cases. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Al Jazeera: You are one of the few lawyers involved in the defence of people facing the death penalty. Why do you take on such cases?
M Ravi: My original focus was mainly commercial and corporate cases, looking at intellectual property, technology, that kind of stuff.
In 2003, when a Malaysian boy Vignes Mourthi was facing the death penalty [for smuggling 27 grams of heroin into the country], I mounted a last-minute constitutional challenge at the request of the former opposition leader in Singapore, Mr J B Jeyaretnam. He’s almost like a Nelson Mandela of Singapore.
On the eve of the execution, I asked the then Chief Justice if we could reopen this case. He said that the case had run its course and there was little I could do.
I then asked [that] if I could show that he was innocent, would Mourthi still be hanged? He said yes. That was a horrifying statement. I saw the way the poor and the oppressed were being treated. It brought me to fight against the death penalty in Singapore.
Al Jazeera: The Law Society of Singapore has suspended you from practising law on psychiatric grounds following your diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What has happened?
M Ravi: As I was preparing to argue Nagaenthran’s appeal, my doctor said suddenly that I am unwell. And that’s it, the Law Society said I have to stop as the doctor found that I am unwell.
I’m still doing work, preparing bundles of papers. If I don’t do that, Nagaenthran will be in the gallows.
The psychiatrists that have spoken to me from around the world, and other people I have spoken to, said that I don’t need treatment and just need rest.
Of course I am frustrated. I was originally told by my doctor that I can still argue Nagaenthran’s case and my MC [medical note] should end on January 13. Then he extended it to March 13. And the court is not going to wait, the Attorney General is pressing that Nagaenthran’s case should go ahead and be rushed through.
Al Jazeera: What other challenges do you face when taking on these difficult cases, going up against the Singapore state?
M Ravi: The Law Society and the Attorney General have applied to the Court of Appeal to suspend me from practice – or even strike me off.
That’s because of a case in 2020, the case of Gobi Avedian. He was supposed to be executed, but I managed to stop it.
The authorities are extremely frustrated because I frustrated their scheme of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that this is the first miscarriage of justice case in Singapore.
In this case, the Court of Appeal said we have made a mistake. The question I asked the Attorney General is ‘What if I had not come to practice law in this case?’ Gobi would have been gone. I criticised the entire administration of the death penalty.
Then there is the media. They constantly say that I am mad. There is psychological harassment about my psychiatric condition.
Al Jazeera: Will Singapore ever get rid of the death penalty?
M Ravi: It will. Just look at the case of Yong Vui Kong. He was only 19 when he was caught [trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2007].
This boy was supposed to be executed and, on the eve of the execution, I filed to stop it.
It took three, four years, but finally the law was amended [Yong was spared]. The law now gives judges some discretion.
So there is a precursor to tell us that things can change. Singapore is ripe to repeal the death penalty, most countries in the Southeast Asia region don’t practise it. Philippines is a no, Myanmar no, Thailand no, Indonesia yes but still slow.
And now we have Richard Branson taking them on and telling other rich people about it.
I think they have no choice but to get rid of it.
Al Jazeera: How confident are you and your team of Nagaenthran’s appeal?
M Ravi: It’s a humungous amount of work. There are five Deputy Public Prosecutors, they are all at the top. Singapore finds a lot of resources to kill people.
I think I will be able to win. Five judges are [hearing] the case. If it’s a shut case and not serious and open, they wouldn’t even come.
Secondly, psychiatric prison experts from the UK and Australia have given their expert opinion to say that the methods used by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore are backwards. The tests are all wrong. The manner in which they are administered are very childish.
Malaysia Should Scrap the Death Penalty Once and For All
Source: The Diplomat (4 March 2022)
https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/malaysia-should-scrap-the-death-penalty-once-and-for-all/
In January, Malaysia’s Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said the cabinet would discuss the findings of a study on alternatives to the mandatory death penalty, which applies to crimes including drug trafficking, treason, and murder.
After almost two years without any progress on death penalty reform, this is a welcome development.
For more than 40 years, Amnesty International has campaigned against the death penalty around the world, and more than two-thirds of countries have abolished it in law or in practice. Here’s why Malaysia – and other countries that retain the death penalty – should show human rights leadership and set an example by scrapping it once and for all.
Simply put, governments should not kill people. Or as the United Nations Human Rights Committee has put it, “the death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life.”
Every single human being has the inherent right to life and governments have an obligation to protect lives, not take them. This right is recognized under international law for all human beings, without distinctions of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.
Amnesty International, and many other individuals and organizations around the world, believes that the death penalty violates this right.
In Malaysia, we have found numerous violations of the right to a fair trial. Defendants who cannot afford or are unable to hire their own lawyers are often unrepresented during police interrogations, and lack interpretation if they do not speak Bahasa Malaysia, while there are credible allegations of torture and other ill treatment at the hands of authorities, among other examples.
The imposition of the death penalty after a violation of the right to a fair trial is a violation of the right to life. There is no perfect criminal justice system and mistakes can always occur. The irreversible nature of the death penalty leaves no room for redress if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted and executed.
The death penalty also discriminates. The greater the disadvantage, the greater the risk of being sentenced to death. Our research has found that the burden of the death penalty in Malaysia has largely fallen on those convicted of drug trafficking, which has disproportionately included women and foreign nationals.
As of September 2021, 67 percent of people on death row are there for drug offenses, some for carrying as little as 15 grams of opioids. A majority of people sentenced to death are also from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, while ethnic minorities are overrepresented among those on death row.
These findings gain an even greater significance when considered in the context of laws and policies that contravene international law and standards: for example, the lack of access to interpretation from the point of arrest for foreign nationals, or the impossibility of having coercion or other mitigating circumstances taken into account at sentencing, because of the mandatory death penalty.
The application of the death penalty can also be arbitrary, particularly for those whose nationality, gender, socioeconomic background, or other characteristics can contribute, or leave them more vulnerable, to being sentenced to death.
What about the argument that the death penalty acts as a unique deterrent against crime?
This has never been backed by evidence. For instance, a study comparing the murder rates in Hong Kong and Singapore, both of a similar size and population, for a 35-year period beginning in 1973 found that the abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong and the high execution rate in Singapore in the mid-1990s had little impact on murder levels.
It is high time the authorities focused their resources on tackling the root causes of crime and devised long-term, more effective solutions. The death penalty does not make us safer. Furthermore, we believe those found responsible for crime deserve second chances.
These beliefs are becoming mainstream. As of today, 144 countries – more than two-thirds of the world’s nations – have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In the Asia-Pacific region, more than 20 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, with Papua New Guinea becoming the latest in January of this year.
In 2020, six Asia-Pacific countries carried out executions, the lowest since Amnesty International began keeping records. Despite voting at the U.N. General Assembly in 2018 and 2020 in favor of two resolutions calling on all countries to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia remains part of an increasingly isolated minority of countries that still practices capital punishment.
Given that it recently took its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, by abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia can align itself with the global trend, improve its human rights record, and send a strong signal to other countries in ASEAN and the region that positive change on the death penalty is not only possible, but required to protect human rights.
We call on Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and his cabinet to do the right thing and abolish the death penalty in Malaysia.
https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/malaysia-should-scrap-the-death-penalty-once-and-for-all/
In January, Malaysia’s Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said the cabinet would discuss the findings of a study on alternatives to the mandatory death penalty, which applies to crimes including drug trafficking, treason, and murder.
After almost two years without any progress on death penalty reform, this is a welcome development.
For more than 40 years, Amnesty International has campaigned against the death penalty around the world, and more than two-thirds of countries have abolished it in law or in practice. Here’s why Malaysia – and other countries that retain the death penalty – should show human rights leadership and set an example by scrapping it once and for all.
Simply put, governments should not kill people. Or as the United Nations Human Rights Committee has put it, “the death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life.”
Every single human being has the inherent right to life and governments have an obligation to protect lives, not take them. This right is recognized under international law for all human beings, without distinctions of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.
Amnesty International, and many other individuals and organizations around the world, believes that the death penalty violates this right.
In Malaysia, we have found numerous violations of the right to a fair trial. Defendants who cannot afford or are unable to hire their own lawyers are often unrepresented during police interrogations, and lack interpretation if they do not speak Bahasa Malaysia, while there are credible allegations of torture and other ill treatment at the hands of authorities, among other examples.
The imposition of the death penalty after a violation of the right to a fair trial is a violation of the right to life. There is no perfect criminal justice system and mistakes can always occur. The irreversible nature of the death penalty leaves no room for redress if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted and executed.
The death penalty also discriminates. The greater the disadvantage, the greater the risk of being sentenced to death. Our research has found that the burden of the death penalty in Malaysia has largely fallen on those convicted of drug trafficking, which has disproportionately included women and foreign nationals.
As of September 2021, 67 percent of people on death row are there for drug offenses, some for carrying as little as 15 grams of opioids. A majority of people sentenced to death are also from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, while ethnic minorities are overrepresented among those on death row.
These findings gain an even greater significance when considered in the context of laws and policies that contravene international law and standards: for example, the lack of access to interpretation from the point of arrest for foreign nationals, or the impossibility of having coercion or other mitigating circumstances taken into account at sentencing, because of the mandatory death penalty.
The application of the death penalty can also be arbitrary, particularly for those whose nationality, gender, socioeconomic background, or other characteristics can contribute, or leave them more vulnerable, to being sentenced to death.
What about the argument that the death penalty acts as a unique deterrent against crime?
This has never been backed by evidence. For instance, a study comparing the murder rates in Hong Kong and Singapore, both of a similar size and population, for a 35-year period beginning in 1973 found that the abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong and the high execution rate in Singapore in the mid-1990s had little impact on murder levels.
It is high time the authorities focused their resources on tackling the root causes of crime and devised long-term, more effective solutions. The death penalty does not make us safer. Furthermore, we believe those found responsible for crime deserve second chances.
These beliefs are becoming mainstream. As of today, 144 countries – more than two-thirds of the world’s nations – have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In the Asia-Pacific region, more than 20 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, with Papua New Guinea becoming the latest in January of this year.
In 2020, six Asia-Pacific countries carried out executions, the lowest since Amnesty International began keeping records. Despite voting at the U.N. General Assembly in 2018 and 2020 in favor of two resolutions calling on all countries to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia remains part of an increasingly isolated minority of countries that still practices capital punishment.
Given that it recently took its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, by abolishing the death penalty, Malaysia can align itself with the global trend, improve its human rights record, and send a strong signal to other countries in ASEAN and the region that positive change on the death penalty is not only possible, but required to protect human rights.
We call on Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and his cabinet to do the right thing and abolish the death penalty in Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
