The author of a new biography of Australia's Opposition Leader says Kevin Rudd would launch a campaign against the death penalty if he was elected Prime Minister.
Robert Macklin said Mr Rudd had not spoken widely about the issue before, but his authorised biography contained "a heck of a lot that is absolutely brand new".
"For example, I'm sure that no one has ever mentioned that if he gets to be prime minister one of his important foreign policy objectives will be to begin a campaign to rid the world of the death penalty," the ABC quoted him as saying.
As Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, Kevin Rudd was active in his opposition to the execution of Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen in Singapore, making personal representations and public calls for the Australian Government to intervene in the case.
On 3 December 2005, the day after Van Tuong Nguyen was hanged, Mr Rudd told a media conference that Australia could do "a lot more" to abolish the death penalty.
"The Prime Minister has asked today whether there was anything more that Australia could now do to abolish the death penalty worldwide. The Prime Minister's response was that there was not much more that Australia could do," Mr Rudd said.
"I disagree with the Prime Minister, there is a lot that Australia can do. Australia must, with the Europeans, work through the United Nations to abolish the death penalty universally."
He said Australia could work against the death penalty through the United Nations and in cooperation with "the Europeans".
Australia had signed the Second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, along with 50 other countries.
"But [that] leaves about 150 other countries to go, around the world. And that is where Australia can team up with the Europeans, who have a similar attitude to Australia, to make sure that we put in every effort to abolish the death penalty universally and for all time," he said.
"It doesn't matter whether we are talking about the death penalty in the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in the Republic of Singapore, Australia should get behind the Europeans, through the United Nations, to put in every effort to abolish this form of punishment, once and for all, throughout the world, and for all time."
He also called for consistent opposition to the death penalty worldwide.
"It is important that our policy is consistent. Labor policy, like the Liberal policy, worldwide, is opposed to the death penalty. And whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent.
"When it comes to Australians, Australian citizens, who are convicted of the death penalty, then together with the Liberal Party, Labor's policy is to make representations to the government concerned to try and seek clemency."
Related stories:
Remembering Van Tuong Nguyen -- 29 November, 2006
MP criticises "tragic waste of human life" -- 29 November, 2006
Trade undisturbed by Singapore execution -- 04 July 2006
Victoria criticises Singapore death penalty -- 17 April 2006
Sunday, 24 June 2007
Thursday, 14 June 2007
No death penalty in draft Thai constitution
The assembly drafting Thailand's next constitution has removed any reference to the death penalty from its draft charter, according to a report in The Nation.
The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) this week removed the expression "death penalty", which The Nation said paved the way for "a possible future campaign to eventually end capital punishment in Thailand".
If the death penalty was provided for in the constitution, a campaign for abolition would have to counter the argument that the punishment was allowed -- or protected -- by the country's highest law.
If references are left out of the final constitution, future campaigns against the death penalty will not face this significant impediment.
"It's good that the capital punishment issue has been adjusted [to remove it from the charter] as it reflects the thinking of a society that doesn't resort to violence," said Kannika Bantherngjit, a member of the CDA.
"We should no longer resort to an eye for an eye and should look at the real cause of crime. Strong punishment is not right. It leads to society solving problems by force."
The country's previous constitution was overturned by the military junta that seized power in September 2006.
The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) this week removed the expression "death penalty", which The Nation said paved the way for "a possible future campaign to eventually end capital punishment in Thailand".
If the death penalty was provided for in the constitution, a campaign for abolition would have to counter the argument that the punishment was allowed -- or protected -- by the country's highest law.
If references are left out of the final constitution, future campaigns against the death penalty will not face this significant impediment.
"It's good that the capital punishment issue has been adjusted [to remove it from the charter] as it reflects the thinking of a society that doesn't resort to violence," said Kannika Bantherngjit, a member of the CDA.
"We should no longer resort to an eye for an eye and should look at the real cause of crime. Strong punishment is not right. It leads to society solving problems by force."
The country's previous constitution was overturned by the military junta that seized power in September 2006.
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Bali 9 challenge may win and fail
The current constitutional challenge to three of the Bali 9 death sentences may not be enough to save their lives - even if they win.
Andrew Chan, Scott Rush and Myuran Sukumaran have taken the case against their death sentences for heroin smuggling to the Indonesia's Constitutional Court.
They are challenging the validity of laws used to sentence them to death despite a guarantee of the 'right to life' in the country's constitution.
Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the Asian Law Centre at the University of Melbourne, wrote about the significance of the case in articles published in The Australian in March and The Herald Sun in May.
He said the Constitutional Court was "neither a quick fix, nor the end of the road" for the three men.
The eventual impact of the case may turn on how Indonesia's constitution is enforced in its judicial system, which is based on the Napoleonic model inherited from the Dutch former colonial ruler.
"In some European-tradition systems, the authority of constitutional courts has often been tightly restricted to constitutional review, sometimes preventing them from hearing appeals from other courts or reversing their decisions," he wrote. Indonesia's Constitutional Court "fits squarely into this category".
Professor Lindsay said the current cases were not "appeals", asking the court to overturn a previous decision of another court. They were rather " 'in principle' challenges to the constitutionality of statutes - in this case, the drugs legislation under which the Bali Nine were convicted".
Even if they won their challenge though, the Constitutional Court had said "its judgments cannot be applied to earlier decisions of other courts". Such a decision would make the death penalty unconstitutional from that point on, but "existing sentences would not be altered".
"This approach is intended to give certainty to court decisions and prevent constitutional reviews from becoming de facto appeals," Professor Lindsey said.
Legal, but harder
However, he said a constitutional win would give their lawyers further impetus for further appeals, and increase the political pressure against the executions.
He wrote in The Herald Sun: "It is hard to imagine a democratic government that would have the nerve to carry out a technically legal execution when the Constitutional Court had declared the death penalty contrary to the Constitution.
"It might be that the Indonesian Government would unilaterally agree to suspend all executions."
Even though President Yudhoyono has said he would not grant clemency to drug offenders, a court decision "outlawing future executions would offer him a way out" by sparing Indonesians and foreigners on death row.
Given the case's challenge to any use of the death penalty in Indonesia, Professor Lindsey concluded in The Australian that the court judges were aware their decision "will be one of the most important they will make, for Indonesians and foreigners alike".
Related stories:
Australians appeal Bali death sentences -- 02 May, 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali nine -- 10 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
Andrew Chan, Scott Rush and Myuran Sukumaran have taken the case against their death sentences for heroin smuggling to the Indonesia's Constitutional Court.
They are challenging the validity of laws used to sentence them to death despite a guarantee of the 'right to life' in the country's constitution.
Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the Asian Law Centre at the University of Melbourne, wrote about the significance of the case in articles published in The Australian in March and The Herald Sun in May.
He said the Constitutional Court was "neither a quick fix, nor the end of the road" for the three men.
The eventual impact of the case may turn on how Indonesia's constitution is enforced in its judicial system, which is based on the Napoleonic model inherited from the Dutch former colonial ruler.
"In some European-tradition systems, the authority of constitutional courts has often been tightly restricted to constitutional review, sometimes preventing them from hearing appeals from other courts or reversing their decisions," he wrote. Indonesia's Constitutional Court "fits squarely into this category".
Professor Lindsay said the current cases were not "appeals", asking the court to overturn a previous decision of another court. They were rather " 'in principle' challenges to the constitutionality of statutes - in this case, the drugs legislation under which the Bali Nine were convicted".
Even if they won their challenge though, the Constitutional Court had said "its judgments cannot be applied to earlier decisions of other courts". Such a decision would make the death penalty unconstitutional from that point on, but "existing sentences would not be altered".
"This approach is intended to give certainty to court decisions and prevent constitutional reviews from becoming de facto appeals," Professor Lindsey said.
Legal, but harder
However, he said a constitutional win would give their lawyers further impetus for further appeals, and increase the political pressure against the executions.
He wrote in The Herald Sun: "It is hard to imagine a democratic government that would have the nerve to carry out a technically legal execution when the Constitutional Court had declared the death penalty contrary to the Constitution.
"It might be that the Indonesian Government would unilaterally agree to suspend all executions."
Even though President Yudhoyono has said he would not grant clemency to drug offenders, a court decision "outlawing future executions would offer him a way out" by sparing Indonesians and foreigners on death row.
Given the case's challenge to any use of the death penalty in Indonesia, Professor Lindsey concluded in The Australian that the court judges were aware their decision "will be one of the most important they will make, for Indonesians and foreigners alike".
Related stories:
Australians appeal Bali death sentences -- 02 May, 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali nine -- 10 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
Sunday, 27 May 2007
Indonesian workers face execution in Malaysia
Hundreds of Indonesian workers are facing execution or death sentences in neighbouring Malaysia, but their government's efforts to save them have been hampered by its own stance on drug offences.
Erman Suparno, Manpower and Transportation Minister, said his government had provided legal assistance to 279 workers either on death row or facing possible capital charges, according to a report in The Jakarta Post on 26 May.
He said 95 per cent were convicted, on trial or under police investigation for illegal possession of drugs thought to be from their home villages in Aceh.
But he said there were limits on what Indonesia could do to help.
"The government cannot interfere in the Malaysian judicial system because both countries impose harsh sanctions on such criminal acts," Erman Suparno said.
In recent years Indonesia has handed down increasing numbers of death sentences for drug offences, and President Yudhoyono reportedly said he would not grant clemency in a capital case involving drugs.
Erman Suparno said several Acehnese sentenced to death on drug charged were awaiting execution following rejection of their appeals by Malaysia's High Court.
He said the Indonesian Government had acted to protect the workers' rights, and recruit Malaysian lawyers to represent them during police investigations and in court.
Several Indonesian migrant workers were also on death row in Saudi Arabia in connection with alleged murders at their workplaces.
Erman Suparno, Manpower and Transportation Minister, said his government had provided legal assistance to 279 workers either on death row or facing possible capital charges, according to a report in The Jakarta Post on 26 May.
He said 95 per cent were convicted, on trial or under police investigation for illegal possession of drugs thought to be from their home villages in Aceh.
But he said there were limits on what Indonesia could do to help.
"The government cannot interfere in the Malaysian judicial system because both countries impose harsh sanctions on such criminal acts," Erman Suparno said.
In recent years Indonesia has handed down increasing numbers of death sentences for drug offences, and President Yudhoyono reportedly said he would not grant clemency in a capital case involving drugs.
Erman Suparno said several Acehnese sentenced to death on drug charged were awaiting execution following rejection of their appeals by Malaysia's High Court.
He said the Indonesian Government had acted to protect the workers' rights, and recruit Malaysian lawyers to represent them during police investigations and in court.
Several Indonesian migrant workers were also on death row in Saudi Arabia in connection with alleged murders at their workplaces.
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row
A suicide attempt by a death row prisoner in Taiwan has revealed the mental anguish suffered by people waiting for the state to take their lives.
Chang Pao-hui (張胞輝) tried to kill himself by swallowing 13 batteries in Hualien Prison in late March, according to a report in The Taipei Times online.
He was rushed to hospital, where doctors operated to remove the batteries from his stomach and intestines.
The Taipei Times said Chang was thought to have been unable to bear the stress of waiting for his execution, which has been delayed for more than 20 months.
It seems his stress was not significantly eased by the fact that Taiwan's Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has been trying to avoid carrying out executions while it moves towards abolishing the death penalty.
A prison official told reporters that Chang seemed emotional recently, and his family rarely visited him.
He was convicted of three murders committed in 2002 and 2003. In June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence.
Minister of Justice Morley Shih (施茂林) told a legislative committee hearing two days later: "I felt sorry and sad on hearing about the incident."
But he said "the ministry has not changed its goal of abolishing the death penalty in Taiwan".
In January, the Ministry of Justice announced that during 2007 it would encourage public debate about abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty.
Death watch on death row
The Taipei Times reported there are currently 24 prisoners under sentence of death in Taiwan.
Related stories:
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
Chang Pao-hui (張胞輝) tried to kill himself by swallowing 13 batteries in Hualien Prison in late March, according to a report in The Taipei Times online.
He was rushed to hospital, where doctors operated to remove the batteries from his stomach and intestines.
The Taipei Times said Chang was thought to have been unable to bear the stress of waiting for his execution, which has been delayed for more than 20 months.
It seems his stress was not significantly eased by the fact that Taiwan's Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has been trying to avoid carrying out executions while it moves towards abolishing the death penalty.
A prison official told reporters that Chang seemed emotional recently, and his family rarely visited him.
He was convicted of three murders committed in 2002 and 2003. In June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence.
Minister of Justice Morley Shih (施茂林) told a legislative committee hearing two days later: "I felt sorry and sad on hearing about the incident."
But he said "the ministry has not changed its goal of abolishing the death penalty in Taiwan".
In January, the Ministry of Justice announced that during 2007 it would encourage public debate about abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty.
Death watch on death row
Another death row inmate, Huang Chih-hsien (黃志賢), reportly committed suicide in Hualien Prison in January, by swallowing three batteries.
The prison official said prison officers had taken steps to ensure the seven death row inmates at Hualien did not kill themselves.
Related stories:
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006
Sunday, 6 May 2007
Drug penalty violates international law
Applying the death penalty for drug-related offences is a breach of international law, according to analysis by a leading human rights adviser to the United Nations.
Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said where it is used, the death penalty should be restricted to the "most serious crimes".
In a detailed analysis in his latest annual report to the Human Rights Council, he concluded the death penalty "must be limited to the most serious crimes, in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
The offences considered to be among the "most serious crimes" did not include those relating to drugs.
The death penalty is widely used across Asia for drug offences, including in China, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, where it is a mandatory sentence for a large number of drug crimes.
The 'most serious' issue
Professor Alston's report said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) first introduced the "basic requirement" restricting the application of the death penalty.
Article 6(1) states that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
This right is elaborated by Article 6(2), which specificies that: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes..."
He said the term was not defined in human rights treaties, but its meaning had been clarified over time through debate, principles of interpretation and the practice of international human rights bodies.
The UN Secretary-General and the Commission on Human Rights have stated and reinforced this principle, and it has also been elaborated through a large number of specific cases decided by the Human Rights Committee.
These developments "have all combined to clarify the meaning and significance of the phrase", which is now taken to refer to crimes where there is a deliberate loss of life.
'Not up to governments'
The report argued that it should be international law, rather than the laws or views of individual governments, which decides the crimes that are "most serious" and therefore liable to the death penalty.
Professor Alston said "a vast array of offences might understandably be classified by any given individual or Government as being among the "most serious"."
He cited work by a previous Special Rapporteur, which found death sentences had been imposed for offences and conduct ranging from corruption, drug possession and blasphemy, to prostitution, 'speculation' and vaguely defined 'crimes against the State'.
While these death sentences may have been considered legal within the country's criminal code and sentencing practices, he said it was not acceptable to leave individual governments to take a "subjective approach" to the issue.
Leaving it to governments to decide the meaning of the term was "not viable".
He said "such an approach would render the relevant international law standard meaningless".
The report found in its summary that, after a wide-ranging survey of legal principles and practice, "if it is to comply with the most serious crimes restriction, the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said where it is used, the death penalty should be restricted to the "most serious crimes".
In a detailed analysis in his latest annual report to the Human Rights Council, he concluded the death penalty "must be limited to the most serious crimes, in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
The offences considered to be among the "most serious crimes" did not include those relating to drugs.
The death penalty is widely used across Asia for drug offences, including in China, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, where it is a mandatory sentence for a large number of drug crimes.
The 'most serious' issue
Professor Alston's report said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) first introduced the "basic requirement" restricting the application of the death penalty.
Article 6(1) states that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
This right is elaborated by Article 6(2), which specificies that: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes..."
He said the term was not defined in human rights treaties, but its meaning had been clarified over time through debate, principles of interpretation and the practice of international human rights bodies.
The UN Secretary-General and the Commission on Human Rights have stated and reinforced this principle, and it has also been elaborated through a large number of specific cases decided by the Human Rights Committee.
These developments "have all combined to clarify the meaning and significance of the phrase", which is now taken to refer to crimes where there is a deliberate loss of life.
'Not up to governments'
The report argued that it should be international law, rather than the laws or views of individual governments, which decides the crimes that are "most serious" and therefore liable to the death penalty.
Professor Alston said "a vast array of offences might understandably be classified by any given individual or Government as being among the "most serious"."
He cited work by a previous Special Rapporteur, which found death sentences had been imposed for offences and conduct ranging from corruption, drug possession and blasphemy, to prostitution, 'speculation' and vaguely defined 'crimes against the State'.
While these death sentences may have been considered legal within the country's criminal code and sentencing practices, he said it was not acceptable to leave individual governments to take a "subjective approach" to the issue.
Leaving it to governments to decide the meaning of the term was "not viable".
He said "such an approach would render the relevant international law standard meaningless".
The report found in its summary that, after a wide-ranging survey of legal principles and practice, "if it is to comply with the most serious crimes restriction, the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Australians appeal Bali death sentences
Six Australians sentenced to death in Indonesia took two separate appeals to court today in an effort to avoid execution for drug trafficking.
The six men were part of a group of nine Australians - the so-called "Bali Nine" - who were arrested in April 2005 and later charged with trying to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin to Australia.
'Court errors'
Si Yi Chen, 22, Matthew Norman, 20 and Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen, 24, appeared in Bali's Denpasar District Court today with their hands in shackles for the first hearing of their judicial review.
They have asked the Supreme Court to overturn its earlier decision upgrading their sentences to death.
Late last month, their lawyers lodged written submissions arguing the court did not consider the full facts of the cases when it changed their sentences from 20 years to death.
A. R. Henry, a member of their legal team, said: "The court cannot change from 20 years to the death penalty without giving full consideration with what was wrong with the previous court decisions."
It has also been reported they will argue the death penalty violates their right to life, guaranteed under Indonesia's constitution.
Breaching the constitution
In Jakarta, lawyers for the three others sentenced to death took a challenge against the country's death penalty to the constitutional court.
Courier Scott Rush and alleged ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are challenging the constitutional validity of the death penalty for drug offences.
International law experts testified that human rights law restricts the death penalty to "the most serious crimes", which is usually interpreted as excluding drug-related offences.
Jeffrey Fagan from Columbia University told the hearing that Indonesia was in breach of its obligations as a party to the ICCPR.
"There is no social science evidence that shows any deterrent effects of capital punishment on drug trafficking or on any other drug crime," he said.
International legal expert Andrew Byrnes, from the University of New South Wales, told the court that imposing the death penalty for drug offences would violate international law.
"This court is not being asked to break radical new ground in terms of international human rights law," he said.
"Rather, the international law has been set out very clearly."
A team of high profile Indonesian lawyers is representing the three in court, backed by leading Australian human rights lawyers.
On Sunday Lex Lasry QC and Julian McMahon flew to Indonesia to observe the hearings, joining Rush's Australian lawyer Colin McDonald QC.
Lasry and McMahon also represented Australian Van Tuong Nguyen, who was hanged for heroin smuggling in Singapore on 2 December 2005.
Background
Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were sentenced to death in February 2006 for allegedly organising the failed Bali Nine operation.
Si Yi Chen, Matthew Norman and Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen were sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2006. Their sentences were reduced to 20 years' imprisonment on appeal to the Denpasar District Court.
The Supreme Court later imposed death sentences, despite the prosecutors' request only that the original life sentences be reinstated.
Scott Rush was originally sentenced to life imprisonment. When he appealed the sentence, the Supreme Court imposed a death sentence.
Related stories:
Indonesia's drug penalty 'appropriate' for syndicates -- 29 January 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali nine -- 10 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
The six men were part of a group of nine Australians - the so-called "Bali Nine" - who were arrested in April 2005 and later charged with trying to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin to Australia.
'Court errors'
Si Yi Chen, 22, Matthew Norman, 20 and Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen, 24, appeared in Bali's Denpasar District Court today with their hands in shackles for the first hearing of their judicial review.
They have asked the Supreme Court to overturn its earlier decision upgrading their sentences to death.
Late last month, their lawyers lodged written submissions arguing the court did not consider the full facts of the cases when it changed their sentences from 20 years to death.
A. R. Henry, a member of their legal team, said: "The court cannot change from 20 years to the death penalty without giving full consideration with what was wrong with the previous court decisions."
It has also been reported they will argue the death penalty violates their right to life, guaranteed under Indonesia's constitution.
Breaching the constitution
In Jakarta, lawyers for the three others sentenced to death took a challenge against the country's death penalty to the constitutional court.
Courier Scott Rush and alleged ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are challenging the constitutional validity of the death penalty for drug offences.
A panel of nine judges convened today to hear arguments that the law under which they were sentenced to death violated their human right to life under the constitution, and Indonesia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
International law experts testified that human rights law restricts the death penalty to "the most serious crimes", which is usually interpreted as excluding drug-related offences.
Jeffrey Fagan from Columbia University told the hearing that Indonesia was in breach of its obligations as a party to the ICCPR.
"There is no social science evidence that shows any deterrent effects of capital punishment on drug trafficking or on any other drug crime," he said.
International legal expert Andrew Byrnes, from the University of New South Wales, told the court that imposing the death penalty for drug offences would violate international law.
"This court is not being asked to break radical new ground in terms of international human rights law," he said.
"Rather, the international law has been set out very clearly."
A team of high profile Indonesian lawyers is representing the three in court, backed by leading Australian human rights lawyers.
On Sunday Lex Lasry QC and Julian McMahon flew to Indonesia to observe the hearings, joining Rush's Australian lawyer Colin McDonald QC.
Lasry and McMahon also represented Australian Van Tuong Nguyen, who was hanged for heroin smuggling in Singapore on 2 December 2005.
Background
Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were sentenced to death in February 2006 for allegedly organising the failed Bali Nine operation.
Si Yi Chen, Matthew Norman and Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen were sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2006. Their sentences were reduced to 20 years' imprisonment on appeal to the Denpasar District Court.
The Supreme Court later imposed death sentences, despite the prosecutors' request only that the original life sentences be reinstated.
Scott Rush was originally sentenced to life imprisonment. When he appealed the sentence, the Supreme Court imposed a death sentence.
Related stories:
Indonesia's drug penalty 'appropriate' for syndicates -- 29 January 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali nine -- 10 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Japan hangs three 'to keep numbers down'
Japan hanged three men on Friday, bringing to seven the number of prisoners it has executed in the past four months.
The latest executions were reportedly carried out now to keep the country's death row population below 100.
Kosaku Nata , Yoshikatsu Oda and Masahiro Tanaka were hanged on 27 April in detention centres in Osaka, Fukuoka and Tokyo.
In an unusual step, the men were executed while Japan's parliament, the Diet, was in session. Executions in Japan are usually timed to avoid parliamentary debate or scrutiny.
According to a report by the Mainichi Daily News, government sources said Justice Minister Nagase ordered the executions at this time because the number of death row inmates had risen sharply to over 100.
Japan's Justice Ministry said the hangings reduced the number of inmates on death row to 99.
The Asahi Shumbun reported that Kosaku Nata, 56, was convicted of a 1983 robbery and murder in Hyogo Prefecture, in which he stole a health insurance card and other items and murdered a colleague's wife and her child.
Yoshikatsu Oda, 59, was convicted of murdering a man and a woman for insurance money in Fukuoka Prefecture in 1990.
Masahiro Tanaka, 42, who went by the family name of Miyashita, was convicted of stabbing to death a female sales assistant and stealing 50,000 yen from a pornography shop in Kagawa Prefecture in 1984.
He was also convicted of three other murders in Tokyo and Tokushima and Kanagawa prefectures, carried out in 1991 and earlier.
Four men, including two over seventy years of age, were hanged on 25 December, 2006.
'Against global trend'
The latest group of executions drew condemnation from human rights and legal organisations opposed to the death penalty.
Amnesty International said the men were hanged on the same day the human rights organisation released statistics indicating a worldwide decline in the number of executions and encouraging progress towards abolition.
According to Amnesty International's figures, the number of reported executions worldwide fell from 2,148 in 2005, to 1,591 in 2006.
Related stories:
Japan: Christmas hangings draw protest -- 03 January, 2007
Executions may resume in Japan -- 21 December, 2006
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 April 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 March 2006
The latest executions were reportedly carried out now to keep the country's death row population below 100.
Kosaku Nata , Yoshikatsu Oda and Masahiro Tanaka were hanged on 27 April in detention centres in Osaka, Fukuoka and Tokyo.
In an unusual step, the men were executed while Japan's parliament, the Diet, was in session. Executions in Japan are usually timed to avoid parliamentary debate or scrutiny.
According to a report by the Mainichi Daily News, government sources said Justice Minister Nagase ordered the executions at this time because the number of death row inmates had risen sharply to over 100.
Japan's Justice Ministry said the hangings reduced the number of inmates on death row to 99.
The Asahi Shumbun reported that Kosaku Nata, 56, was convicted of a 1983 robbery and murder in Hyogo Prefecture, in which he stole a health insurance card and other items and murdered a colleague's wife and her child.
Yoshikatsu Oda, 59, was convicted of murdering a man and a woman for insurance money in Fukuoka Prefecture in 1990.
Masahiro Tanaka, 42, who went by the family name of Miyashita, was convicted of stabbing to death a female sales assistant and stealing 50,000 yen from a pornography shop in Kagawa Prefecture in 1984.
He was also convicted of three other murders in Tokyo and Tokushima and Kanagawa prefectures, carried out in 1991 and earlier.
Four men, including two over seventy years of age, were hanged on 25 December, 2006.
'Against global trend'
The latest group of executions drew condemnation from human rights and legal organisations opposed to the death penalty.
Amnesty International said the men were hanged on the same day the human rights organisation released statistics indicating a worldwide decline in the number of executions and encouraging progress towards abolition.
According to Amnesty International's figures, the number of reported executions worldwide fell from 2,148 in 2005, to 1,591 in 2006.
Related stories:
Japan: Christmas hangings draw protest -- 03 January, 2007
Executions may resume in Japan -- 21 December, 2006
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 April 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 March 2006
Indonesia: Convicted murderer shot
Indonesia yesterday executed a man for murdering a family of six in February 1999.
It was the fourteenth reported execution in Indonesia since 1995.
Ayub Bulubili, 40, was shot by firing squad at 1:30am on Saturday at a shooting range in Central Kalimantan, according to an AFP report.
AFP quoted Agustinus Siahaan, a warden at Palangkaraya jail where Bulubili had been held, who said the prisoner took part in a Catholic religious service in the prison before he was executed.
"He was executed early on Saturday morning and was buried near here before noon," Mr Siahaan said.
Bulubili would have been notified of his execution at least 72 hours before it was carried out.
Human rights organisation Amnesty International (AI) released an Urgent Action appeal last week in an attempt to prevent the execution.
AI said Ayub Bulubili was sentenced to death on 28 October 1999 by the Kapuas District court in Central Kalimantan province.
He was convicted of the premeditated murder of a family of six, including four children between four and thirteen years of age.
His sentence was upheld by the Central Kalimantan High Court and by the Indonesian Supreme Court. AI said two appeals for presidential clemency were rejected, the first by then President Megawati Sukarnoputri in July 2004 and the second by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in March 2007.
AI reports there are at least 91 people believed to be under sentence of death in Indonesia, 13 of whom were convicted and sentenced to death in 2006.
Executions in Indonesia are carried out by firing squad, although the government is considering a move to lethal injection.
Prisoners are shot by a firing squad of twelve people. Six guns are loaded with live ammunition and six with blanks.
Related stories:
Executions in Indonesia since 1995 -- 26 September 2006
It was the fourteenth reported execution in Indonesia since 1995.
Ayub Bulubili, 40, was shot by firing squad at 1:30am on Saturday at a shooting range in Central Kalimantan, according to an AFP report.
AFP quoted Agustinus Siahaan, a warden at Palangkaraya jail where Bulubili had been held, who said the prisoner took part in a Catholic religious service in the prison before he was executed.
"He was executed early on Saturday morning and was buried near here before noon," Mr Siahaan said.
Bulubili would have been notified of his execution at least 72 hours before it was carried out.
Human rights organisation Amnesty International (AI) released an Urgent Action appeal last week in an attempt to prevent the execution.
AI said Ayub Bulubili was sentenced to death on 28 October 1999 by the Kapuas District court in Central Kalimantan province.
He was convicted of the premeditated murder of a family of six, including four children between four and thirteen years of age.
His sentence was upheld by the Central Kalimantan High Court and by the Indonesian Supreme Court. AI said two appeals for presidential clemency were rejected, the first by then President Megawati Sukarnoputri in July 2004 and the second by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in March 2007.
AI reports there are at least 91 people believed to be under sentence of death in Indonesia, 13 of whom were convicted and sentenced to death in 2006.
Executions in Indonesia are carried out by firing squad, although the government is considering a move to lethal injection.
Prisoners are shot by a firing squad of twelve people. Six guns are loaded with live ammunition and six with blanks.
Related stories:
Executions in Indonesia since 1995 -- 26 September 2006
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Malaysia: Expanded penalty condemned
Malaysian human rights activists have condemned the reported expansion of the death penalty for terrorism offences.
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) said in a statement on 20 March it was "shocked and disappointed" at the new offence, which applies a mandatory death sentence for terrorist acts that cause death.
A second offence applies the death penalty to people convicted of giving financial aid to terrorists.
The new laws reportedly came into effect on 6 March, one day after they were gazetted by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz.
MADPET said, however, Minister Aziz was reported in 2006 as saying: "For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person has taken another life..."
The wrong direction
The organisation said the death penalty was an unsafe and unnecessary response to serious crime.
"It is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible.
"In an age, when it is possible to isolate persons guilty of the most heinous of crimes from society by the imposition of life imprisonment, there can be no more justification for the usage of the death penalty," it said.
The statement said 128 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, compared to the 69 countries that retain and use it.
"It is ironic that at a time when the nations of the world are rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty, Malaysia is once again unnecessarily and imprudently extending the range of capital offences," MADPET said.
Calls for abolition
The organisation pointed out that a Malaysian television poll conducted last year showed 64% in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
The poll was conducted on 7 May 2006, during the Hello on Two programme, which "has an estimated audience of 80,000".
In March 2006, the country's peak legal organisation the Malaysia Bar passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Malaysia's 'inexcusable' position on death penalty -- 22 July, 2006
Malaysia: Life sentence under the noose - 21 July, 2006
Malaysia: Opposition to water pollution death sentences - 09 May, 2006
Malaysia may execute water polluters -- 29 April, 2006
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
Malaysia PM defends death for drug offenders -- 24 February, 2006
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) said in a statement on 20 March it was "shocked and disappointed" at the new offence, which applies a mandatory death sentence for terrorist acts that cause death.
A second offence applies the death penalty to people convicted of giving financial aid to terrorists.
The new laws reportedly came into effect on 6 March, one day after they were gazetted by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz.
MADPET said, however, Minister Aziz was reported in 2006 as saying: "For me, a life is a life. No one has the right to take someone else's life, even if that person has taken another life..."
The wrong direction
The organisation said the death penalty was an unsafe and unnecessary response to serious crime.
"It is not possible in any system of human justice to prevent the horrifying possibility of the execution of innocent persons; and the infliction of the death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible.
"In an age, when it is possible to isolate persons guilty of the most heinous of crimes from society by the imposition of life imprisonment, there can be no more justification for the usage of the death penalty," it said.
The statement said 128 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, compared to the 69 countries that retain and use it.
"It is ironic that at a time when the nations of the world are rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty, Malaysia is once again unnecessarily and imprudently extending the range of capital offences," MADPET said.
Calls for abolition
The organisation pointed out that a Malaysian television poll conducted last year showed 64% in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
The poll was conducted on 7 May 2006, during the Hello on Two programme, which "has an estimated audience of 80,000".
In March 2006, the country's peak legal organisation the Malaysia Bar passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Malaysia's 'inexcusable' position on death penalty -- 22 July, 2006
Malaysia: Life sentence under the noose - 21 July, 2006
Malaysia: Opposition to water pollution death sentences - 09 May, 2006
Malaysia may execute water polluters -- 29 April, 2006
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
Malaysia PM defends death for drug offenders -- 24 February, 2006
Sunday, 8 April 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again
China's four major criminal justice agencies have called for more careful handling of death penalty cases, saying police must obey laws that protect suspects and judges should consider evidence more carefully.
The Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Justice and the country's top prosecutor, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, issued a joint statement on 11 March defining the obligations of law enforcement officials and advocating a reduction in death sentences.
"Our country still cannot abolish the death penalty but should gradually reduce its application," the statement said, according to the Associated Press (AP).
"But where there is a possibility someone should not be executed, then without exception the person should not be killed."
China's official newsagency Xinhua said the statement emphasised the Supreme People's Court now has the authority to give final approval in capital cases.
"It also asked law enforcement officials to strictly obey laws in identifying facts, collecting evidence, dealing with procedures and adopting punishments," Xinhua said.
The statment said police were banned from using torture to extract confessions and from illegally collecting evidence.
Xinhua said judges should "pay more attention to the validity of evidence in handling death penalty cases".
The AP report said officials had an obligation to "ensure crime suspects and defendants can fully exercise their rights to defense and other procedural rights".
First executions approved
Xinhua reported on 19 March that the SPC had approved at least four death sentences since it resumed hearing final appeals from 1 January.
An SPC judge said review panels had confirmed the original death sentences in four cases, but he would not say how many cases had been reviewed in total.
According to the Xinhua report, convicted criminals cannot now be executed without the approval of the supreme court.
"If the supreme court approves the death penalty, they will be executed within seven days of local courts receiving the notice of the supreme court," it said.
"During the review process, the supreme court has also found cases lacking evidence, and returned them to lower courts for further inquiries, said the judge.
'Sending back'
In late February, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a regulation clarifying that it would order provincial courts to retry suspects if it found errors in judgements.
A Xinhua report, published on the SPC-sponsored Chinacourt website, said the regulation would see the court sending back capital cases for retrial rather than changing the sentences.
"The new regulation will guarantee that death sentences are handed out with caution by ordering retrials, which will also improve the efficiency of SPC death penalty reviews," an SPC spokesman said.
Xinhua said the SPC would only change death sentences in cases where individuals faced multiple death sentences, or multiple criminals faced death penalties.
The regulation would reportedly take effect on 28 February.
Related stories:
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
China to video death penalty appeals -- 28 May 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
The Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Justice and the country's top prosecutor, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, issued a joint statement on 11 March defining the obligations of law enforcement officials and advocating a reduction in death sentences.
"Our country still cannot abolish the death penalty but should gradually reduce its application," the statement said, according to the Associated Press (AP).
"But where there is a possibility someone should not be executed, then without exception the person should not be killed."
China's official newsagency Xinhua said the statement emphasised the Supreme People's Court now has the authority to give final approval in capital cases.
"It also asked law enforcement officials to strictly obey laws in identifying facts, collecting evidence, dealing with procedures and adopting punishments," Xinhua said.
The statment said police were banned from using torture to extract confessions and from illegally collecting evidence.
Xinhua said judges should "pay more attention to the validity of evidence in handling death penalty cases".
The AP report said officials had an obligation to "ensure crime suspects and defendants can fully exercise their rights to defense and other procedural rights".
First executions approved
Xinhua reported on 19 March that the SPC had approved at least four death sentences since it resumed hearing final appeals from 1 January.
An SPC judge said review panels had confirmed the original death sentences in four cases, but he would not say how many cases had been reviewed in total.
According to the Xinhua report, convicted criminals cannot now be executed without the approval of the supreme court.
"If the supreme court approves the death penalty, they will be executed within seven days of local courts receiving the notice of the supreme court," it said.
"During the review process, the supreme court has also found cases lacking evidence, and returned them to lower courts for further inquiries, said the judge.
'Sending back'
In late February, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a regulation clarifying that it would order provincial courts to retry suspects if it found errors in judgements.
A Xinhua report, published on the SPC-sponsored Chinacourt website, said the regulation would see the court sending back capital cases for retrial rather than changing the sentences.
"The new regulation will guarantee that death sentences are handed out with caution by ordering retrials, which will also improve the efficiency of SPC death penalty reviews," an SPC spokesman said.
Xinhua said the SPC would only change death sentences in cases where individuals faced multiple death sentences, or multiple criminals faced death penalties.
The regulation would reportedly take effect on 28 February.
Related stories:
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
China to video death penalty appeals -- 28 May 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
Monday, 19 March 2007
Indonesia considers lethal injection
Indonesia may change its method of execution and move to limit appeals for death row convicts, according to Attorney-General Abdulrahman Saleh.
Mr Saleh made the remarks, reported by AAP, at a court hearing into whether convicted Australian drug trafficker Scott Rush could make a constitutional challenge to his death sentence.
He said the government had "held several meetings with [the] Indonesian doctors' association to use a new method, to request some changes in the law, by using injection".
"Like in the USA, now people are injected so they would get unconscious and then the second injections would be the deadly toxic injection.
"That would be more humane," he said, contrasting lethal injection with Indonesia's current method of carrying out executions by six-man firing squad.
His apparent confidence in the 'humane' use of lethal injection stands in contrast to the crisis of confidence in lethal injection in many parts of the USA, with several investigations underway following repeated botched executions and concerns that lethal injection may in fact mask extreme pain by first paralysing muscles.
Mr Saleh also said he wanted to amend laws that allowed prisoners to repeatedly seek clemency, claiming this could happen up to five times.
"I hope it won't happen again in the future ... I am going to regulate [to prevent] this," he said.
Related stories:
Indonesia's drug penalty 'appropriate' for syndicates -- 29 January, 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali Nine -- 11 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
Mr Saleh made the remarks, reported by AAP, at a court hearing into whether convicted Australian drug trafficker Scott Rush could make a constitutional challenge to his death sentence.
He said the government had "held several meetings with [the] Indonesian doctors' association to use a new method, to request some changes in the law, by using injection".
"Like in the USA, now people are injected so they would get unconscious and then the second injections would be the deadly toxic injection.
"That would be more humane," he said, contrasting lethal injection with Indonesia's current method of carrying out executions by six-man firing squad.
His apparent confidence in the 'humane' use of lethal injection stands in contrast to the crisis of confidence in lethal injection in many parts of the USA, with several investigations underway following repeated botched executions and concerns that lethal injection may in fact mask extreme pain by first paralysing muscles.
Mr Saleh also said he wanted to amend laws that allowed prisoners to repeatedly seek clemency, claiming this could happen up to five times.
"I hope it won't happen again in the future ... I am going to regulate [to prevent] this," he said.
Related stories:
Indonesia's drug penalty 'appropriate' for syndicates -- 29 January, 2007
Firing squad for six of Bali Nine -- 11 September, 2006
Bali 9 death sentence confirmed -- 26 April, 2006
Friday, 2 March 2007
Ryan hanging: Two groups of victims
Two men lost their lives as a direct result of an escape from Melbourne's Pentridge prison in December 1965.
Prison warder George Hodson was shot dead in the chaos after the alarm was raised, and Ronald Ryan was hanged over 13 months later for his alleged murder.
Their daughters gave rare interviews on the 40th anniversary of the execution, describing how they suffered - then and since - and the great deal they have in common.
Wendy Ryan told The Age newspaper of the silence in the family home leading up to 8 o'clock, the time her father was set to hang.
Her mother gathered Wendy, who was 13 at the time, and her two sisters in the lounge room of the family home.
"As soon as it struck 8 o'clock, that was it. It was like the world stopped," she said.
"Mum had everything dead quiet. She didn't want the radio, … the television, she just wanted us kids.
"Part of me just died. That was the worst day of my life and I hope I never have to go through that again. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."
Two life sentences
Carole Hodson Price, whose father was killed in the escape, said both families still shared the trauma of the two deaths.
"Ryan is gone but his family and myself, we're the ones serving life sentences."
The Herald-Sun reported that "Mrs Price opposes the death penalty because it penalises families, giving the guilty no chance for lengthy remorse, punishment and rehabilitation".
Carole said she and Wendy, who first met last year, had a lot in common with each other.
"Wendy Ryan and I were 13 at the time," she said.
"She's had to live with what happened to her father, I've had to live with what happened to mine. We've a lot in common."
Continuing pain
Ryan's youngest daughter Pip Donovan described how the support among the sisters and their mother helped them endure the pain of the execution - and people's reactions to the their father.
"There was just so much bad feeling around at the time, we all learnt to lean on each other, and that's why we're so close," Ms Donovan told The Age.
She told The Herald-Sun that the anniversary was a reminder of the public hostility directed at her family.
"We function normally but this brings back the old feelings of ridicule.
"Some people were really nasty to us growing up. We knew when to hide or not go out, to protect each other as a family.
"We were very close, very loving," Ms Donovan said.
Related stories:
'Ryan was innocent': lawyer - 13 February, 2007
Ronald Ryan forty years on -- 05 February, 2007
Prison warder George Hodson was shot dead in the chaos after the alarm was raised, and Ronald Ryan was hanged over 13 months later for his alleged murder.
Their daughters gave rare interviews on the 40th anniversary of the execution, describing how they suffered - then and since - and the great deal they have in common.
Wendy Ryan told The Age newspaper of the silence in the family home leading up to 8 o'clock, the time her father was set to hang.
Her mother gathered Wendy, who was 13 at the time, and her two sisters in the lounge room of the family home.
"As soon as it struck 8 o'clock, that was it. It was like the world stopped," she said.
"Mum had everything dead quiet. She didn't want the radio, … the television, she just wanted us kids.
"Part of me just died. That was the worst day of my life and I hope I never have to go through that again. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."
Two life sentences
Carole Hodson Price, whose father was killed in the escape, said both families still shared the trauma of the two deaths.
"Ryan is gone but his family and myself, we're the ones serving life sentences."
The Herald-Sun reported that "Mrs Price opposes the death penalty because it penalises families, giving the guilty no chance for lengthy remorse, punishment and rehabilitation".
Carole said she and Wendy, who first met last year, had a lot in common with each other.
"Wendy Ryan and I were 13 at the time," she said.
"She's had to live with what happened to her father, I've had to live with what happened to mine. We've a lot in common."
Continuing pain
Ryan's youngest daughter Pip Donovan described how the support among the sisters and their mother helped them endure the pain of the execution - and people's reactions to the their father.
"There was just so much bad feeling around at the time, we all learnt to lean on each other, and that's why we're so close," Ms Donovan told The Age.
She told The Herald-Sun that the anniversary was a reminder of the public hostility directed at her family.
"We function normally but this brings back the old feelings of ridicule.
"Some people were really nasty to us growing up. We knew when to hide or not go out, to protect each other as a family.
"We were very close, very loving," Ms Donovan said.
Related stories:
'Ryan was innocent': lawyer - 13 February, 2007
Ronald Ryan forty years on -- 05 February, 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
South Korea: death penalty not on 'roadmap'
A new human rights 'roadmap' issued by South Korea's Ministry of Justice has ignored calls for the abolition of the death penalty.
The roadmap for human rights protection, announced on 13 February, deferred a decision on abolishing the death penalty, according to the English language edition of The Hankyoreh.
South Korea's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has repeatedly called for the country to move towards abolition.
The roadmap also ignored calls for the abolition of the country's notorious National Security Law.
The ministry said it was deferring a decision on the death penalty, but in the first half of this year it would review whether the penalty should be abolished.
It said the government would consider the introduction of an 'absolute life sentence' and would try to take into account the outcome of the current National Assembly discussion of a bill abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, the Ministry of Justice also announced it would review the death penalty and consider replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment. At the time, this was seen as a significant concession from a ministry that had previously opposed moves towards abolition in the National Assembly.
The Hankyoreh report said the NHRC "could not understand why the Ministry of Justice's draft sought to defer a decision on abolishing the National Security Law and [the] death penalty".
In 2005, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission recommended the death penalty be abolished, and in early 2006 it recommended the government set out a plan for human rights.
The last executions in South Korea were carried out in December 1997, when 23 people were hanged.
Related stories:
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June , 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April, 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March, 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February, 2006
Positive signs in the Philippines and South Korea -- 22 February, 2006
The roadmap for human rights protection, announced on 13 February, deferred a decision on abolishing the death penalty, according to the English language edition of The Hankyoreh.
South Korea's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has repeatedly called for the country to move towards abolition.
The roadmap also ignored calls for the abolition of the country's notorious National Security Law.
The ministry said it was deferring a decision on the death penalty, but in the first half of this year it would review whether the penalty should be abolished.
It said the government would consider the introduction of an 'absolute life sentence' and would try to take into account the outcome of the current National Assembly discussion of a bill abolishing the death penalty.
In February 2006, the Ministry of Justice also announced it would review the death penalty and consider replacing it with a sentence of life imprisonment. At the time, this was seen as a significant concession from a ministry that had previously opposed moves towards abolition in the National Assembly.
The Hankyoreh report said the NHRC "could not understand why the Ministry of Justice's draft sought to defer a decision on abolishing the National Security Law and [the] death penalty".
In 2005, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission recommended the death penalty be abolished, and in early 2006 it recommended the government set out a plan for human rights.
The last executions in South Korea were carried out in December 1997, when 23 people were hanged.
Related stories:
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June , 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April, 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March, 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February, 2006
Positive signs in the Philippines and South Korea -- 22 February, 2006
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
'Ryan was innocent': lawyer
In our piece on the 40th anniversary of Ronald Ryan's hanging, we noted that his lawyer had always claimed he was innocent, a view rejected again last week by his biographer.
Mike Richards, author of The Hanged Man: The Life and Death of Ronald Ryan, said the condemned man confessed to the Pentridge prison governor the night before he was executed.
A reader has drawn our attention to a 2002 letter by defence barrister Phillip Opas detailing the final steps in his efforts to save his client's life
"I will go to my grave firmly of the opinion that Ronald Ryan did not commit murder," he wrote.
"I refuse to believe that at any time he told anyone that he did. When all hope of a reprieve had gone and he had decided that he might as well declare his guilt (if that was the fact) there are two people whom I believe he would have told and they were Father Brosnan and me.
"I will go to my grave firmly of the opinion that Ronald Ryan did not commit murder," he wrote.
"I refuse to believe that at any time he told anyone that he did. When all hope of a reprieve had gone and he had decided that he might as well declare his guilt (if that was the fact) there are two people whom I believe he would have told and they were Father Brosnan and me.
"Father Brosnan and I have formed a lifelong friendship since the hanging, and Father has told me that Ryan never made any admission of guilt to him," Opas wrote.
He said Ryan "always vehemently denied" that he had shot and killed prison warder George Hodson.
While he planned a final appeal to the Privy Council, he believed it would ultimately fail but it would buy "time to create a groundswell of public opinion that would prevent the government from carrying out its declared intention of executing him".
According to Opus, Ryan replied: "We've all got to go some time, but I don't want to go this way for something I didn't do."
He said Ryan "always vehemently denied" that he had shot and killed prison warder George Hodson.
While he planned a final appeal to the Privy Council, he believed it would ultimately fail but it would buy "time to create a groundswell of public opinion that would prevent the government from carrying out its declared intention of executing him".
According to Opus, Ryan replied: "We've all got to go some time, but I don't want to go this way for something I didn't do."
"Then he smiled and added, "You know, mate, we're playing time on. If you don't kick a goal soon, we're going to lose this match," Opus wrote.
It was the last time he saw his client.
Contesting the fatal shot
In the letter, Opus outlined the basis for his opinion that "not only did he not fire a shot, but that he could not have fired the shot that killed the warder".
In the letter, Opus outlined the basis for his opinion that "not only did he not fire a shot, but that he could not have fired the shot that killed the warder".
It detailed facts which Dr Opas said "could neither lie nor be mistaken", including:
- witnesses claiming to have seen Ryan's shoulder jerk back and smoke coming from the barrel of the gun, when in fact that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges
- the lack of any forensic evidence that the gun was ever fired when it was in Ryan's possession
- a call Opas received a few years after the hanging, claiming that a prison officer had found the ninth round from Ryan's gun, which the caller claimed was dropped in the tower. The anonymous caller said the prison officer was forced by superiors to change his statement to omit all reference to the bullets, after he was threatened with a charge of "conspiring with the prisoners to help the escape"
- calculations that Ryan could not have shot Hodson at the downwards angle indicated by his entry and exit wounds, contrasted with
- statements that another prisoner officer had taken aim at Ryan while standing on a low stone wall in front of the jail, but pulled the gun up as he fired, a move which could have seen Hodson shot from the correct angle.
Dr Opas concluded: "Ryan was the unfortunate victim of the Premier's determination to have a hanging."
"I will always be troubled by the feeling that Ryan should have been acquitted and that I must have been inadequate for the task of defending him," he wrote.
Letter published: Victorian Bar News, Issue No: 122, Spring Edition 2002, 1/09/2002
(Anon, thanks for the tip.)
"I will always be troubled by the feeling that Ryan should have been acquitted and that I must have been inadequate for the task of defending him," he wrote.
Letter published: Victorian Bar News, Issue No: 122, Spring Edition 2002, 1/09/2002
(Anon, thanks for the tip.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
