May 18
UNITED KINGDOM:
Tory aide: 'I was hired as an execution consultant to teach US prison staff how
to hang people'----Tony Homewood, Conservative election agent for Wakefield
candidate Antony Calvert, revealed he was an "execution consultant" and had
been "instrumental" in the hanging of serial killer Westley Allan Dodd
A Tory candidate's senior aide has revealed he was hired by a US prison to
teach staff how execute people by hanging.
Tony Homewood, who is Conservative election agent for Wakefield candidate
Antony Calvert, was employed by the state of Washington as an "executions
consultant in the 1990s."
Homewood told BBC Three Counties: "In the 90s, when the Americans hanged
Westley Allan Dodd in Olympia, they didn't really know how to do it, so they
looked around for someone who knew something about hanging. And I was a
recognised historian on British judicial executions.
"And they engaged me as a consultant."
Tony Homewood said he slept "sucking my thumb like a baby" the night Dodd was
executed
Host Jonathan Vernon-Smith was taken aback, saying: "You were a consultant
executioner?"
Homewood said: "I was yes. For Scott Blonien, the [assistant] Attorney General
at Walla Walla state prison."
Vernon-Smith asked: "So they wanted to know how they could effectively hang
people and kill them?
Homewood replied: "How to do it without strangling them to death, basically.
Yeah.
"Unfortunately - or, you might say fortunately depending on your viewpoint -
the courts in America ruled it to be cruel and unusual punishment, and there
were only 3 in the 90s and then there were no more."
Dodd was a serial killer and child molester, who has been called "one of the
most evil killers in history."
He was convicted for tying 2 10 and 11 year old boys to a tree, raping them and
then stabbing them to death. He abused and murdered a 3rd child in his home.
Dodd chose hanging as his preferred method of execution, adding that he chose
the method because it was how his final victim died.
He also asked for the execution to be televised, but the request was denied.
He called into the radio station to take part in a debate on moors murderer Ian
Brady, arguing the serial killer should have been put to death for his crimes.
He argued Brady had been able to "torture" the mother of victim Keith Bennett,
whose body was never found, by claiming for decades he knew where he was
buried, but refusing to reveal the location.
"Personally, I think that 10 quid for the executioner," he said, "or 15 guineas
by '65, '64, to have hung him at Manchester would have saved the world a lot of
trouble as far as I'm concerned."
Asked if he thought he could have conducted the execution himself, he said:
"Yes, I could do it."
The host asked him how he knew he could perform an execution: "Have you
performed one? Have you killed someone?"
"That's by the way," he replied. "That's not what we're talking about. We're
here to talk about the death penalty and that's carrying out the sentence of
the court."
He boasted he'd been told the 1st execution he consulted on was one of the
quickest deaths ever
He added: "Let's put it this way, I orchestrated the execution of people in
America and I didn't lose any sleep over it. Maybe I'm wrong. Taking someone's
life...takes some doing, I'm sure it would have some effect.
"I'm very good at rationalising this sort of thing."
He said he had been "instrumental" in the death of prisoners, but had not been
there when the execution took place.
He told authorities how tight to tie the rope and how far to drop the prisoner,
among other things.
He said: "Well, Westley Dodd hanged three children. So hey ho, I'm not
particularly worried about it. I'm very good at detaching myself from these
things, you know what I mean?"
He added that when he went to bed that night he was "sucking my thumb like a
baby. It didn't bother me at all."
He boasted he had been told by the assistant Attorney General that the
execution had been one of the quickest he'd ever seen.
But he denied he was unemotional. "I've got Grandchildren,' he said. "And I
love them to death."
He said he wouldn't want to do the job every day, and he wouldn't want to hang
people "willy nilly."
He said he advised executioners on a 2nd prisoner, who they were concerned
about hanging because he was overweight.
(source: mirror.co.uk)
*****************
Ian Brady escaped hanging - and defined attitudes to the death penalty----Apart
from their sheer horror, the Moors murders stayed in the public imagination
because they marked the end of capital punishment
Ian Brady retained his dark grip on the British imagination right to the very
end. The 1965 police photograph of the Moors murderer stared out from the front
pages once more this week to mark his death at 79, just as they have done so
often ever since Brady was convicted of 3 murders in May 1966. Few criminals of
any era are front-page news for half a century; Brady and his accomplice, Myra
Hindley, were unquestionably 2 of them.
The most obvious reason for this 50-year notoriety is, of course, the sheer
horror of the crimes that Brady planned and committed. The details of his
tortures and acts are unbearable. The transcript of victims' pleas, never mind
the tapes that were heard in court, are as shocking as anything one could ever
encounter.
But the revolting nature of the crimes, important though it is, is not the only
explanation for the long shadow that Brady cast over Britain into the 21st
century. Though the serial murder of children for pleasure, and the involvement
of a woman as co-killer, marked the Moors murders out in the annals of British
crime, they also came at a potently significant time in the evolution of
British penal policy: the abolition of the death penalty.
Brady and Hindley carried out their killings between 1963 and 1965. Brady was
arrested on 7 October 1965.
However in December 1964, with Harold Wilson's Labour in a small parliamentary
majority, the House of Commons voted by 355 to 170 in favour of the backbencher
Sydney Silverman's bill to abolish hanging in Britain. By the time that Brady
was arrested, Silverman's bill had almost completed its parliamentary journey.
A month after the arrest, the bill became law. Hanging was abolished on 9
November 1965.
So by the time that Brady and Hindley's cases came to trial, at Chester in
April 1966, the sentence for murder that would have applied at the time they
killed their victims had changed from hanging to life imprisonment. As a
result, for very many people, Brady and Hindley became the totemic faces of a
Britain that they believed had "gone soft" on crime.
The importance of the intimacy between the Moors murders and the abolition of
the death penalty is hard to overstate. Even before the trial, the killings
became the focus of a campaign to bring back hanging.
In the general election of 31 March 1966, Silverman was challenged in the
Nelson and Colne constituency in northern Lancashire, which he had represented
since 1935, by Patrick Downey, the uncle of 1 of his victims, Lesley Ann
Downey. Downey stood on a single-plank, pro-hanging platform. Silverman held on
with an increased majority (he died 2 years later). But Downey took 5,117
votes, nearly 14% of the total, amid great publicity.
Downey's intervention was the trigger for an immediate repoliticisation of the
hanging issue by senior Conservatives, notably the former cabinet minister
Duncan Sandys. As early as the autumn of 1966, Sandys tried to launch a bill to
reintroduce hanging for the killers of police officers.
This was to be the first of a regularly recurring series of attempts to bring
back hanging over the ensuing 20 years, generally backed by large majorities in
the opinion polls. And while Brady himself had not killed a police officer, he
and Hindley were regularly front and centre of every press and parliamentary
campaign to bring back the rope.
50 years on, the campaign to bring back hanging has lost most of its momentum.
Conservative party general election manifestos no longer commit, as they did in
the 1970s and 1980s, to a free vote on the issue in the next parliament.
Parliament has not debated hanging since 1998. Most MPs of all parties are now
firm abolitionists. In 2015 the British Social Attitudes Survey reported that
only 48% of the public supported bringing back the rope, perhaps the 1st time
that the return of capital punishment fell short of a poll majority. It was the
lowest figure since the survey began in 1983, when around 75% of people were in
favour.
The media coverage of Brady's death shows that all the many passions that were
aroused for so long by his killings have not quite died with him. There will
still be journalists, retired police officers and relatives of the victims who
will demand another inquiry or dig on Saddleworth Moor, where the victims'
bodies were buried. Yet when Brady's ashes are disposed of - perhaps they
already have been - Britain can perhaps finally lay to rest the long and
lingering possibility from the 1960s that hanging will ever return.
(source: The Guardian)
JAPAN:
Japan's opposition bloc gears up to block controversial conspiracy bill,
submits no-confidence motion
Japan's opposition parties on Wednesday submitted a no-confidence motion in the
justice minister to the lower house of parliament and in doing so delayed the
passage of a controversial anti-terror conspiracy bill that Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe's government is ardently trying to force into law.
The no-confidence motion against Justice Minister Katsutoshi Kaneda, which has
been brought by the main opposition Democratic Party along with three smaller
parties, takes aim directly at Kaneda who they have been lambasting for his
mishandling of debate on the issue.
According to the no-confidence motion, Kaneda, who is in charge of
deliberations on the bill in parliament, has "continued to display behavior
unbecoming of a cabinet minister, having been unable to answer even basic
questions, such as whether ordinary people will be targeted by this bill."
Opposition parties also fundamentally maintain that the bill remains a danger
to the privacy of ordinary citizens and could unjustly punish civic groups and
labor unions.
Nevertheless, it has been approved by Abe's cabinet and has the backing of his
ruling Liberal Democratic Party-led bloc.
They believe that when it comes into effect, it will be able to tackle what Abe
has described could be potential terrorist threats on Japanese soil associated
with the hosting of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics here.
The ruling coalition is hoping to get the contentious bill enacted after debate
in both chambers of parliament by the end of the current parliamentary session
on June 18, and Kaneda has told the press he wants to continue in his role,
despite being admonished by the opposition camp.
Nevertheless, opposition party heads have stated that the mere semantic changes
made to the final draft of the bill -- that itself has been rewritten numerous
times -- are not enough for them to sign off on its passage through the lower
chamber.
They have collectively voiced concern that the state would be allowed
unprecedented powers of surveillance and could persecute civic groups without
unequivocal justification, if the bill becomes law.
In the latest iteration of the bill, which is aimed at amending the law on
organized crime, informed sources said recently the charge of conspiracy has
simply been reworded as "planning terrorism and similar acts." Versions that
have since been scrapped applied to "broader" groups.
The contentious bill also proposes punishing crimes in connection with the
expansion of illegal activities of organized crime groups and covers 277
possible offenses spanning systematic killings, drug crimes and hijacking.
Those caught plotting one of the crimes could face up to five years in prison
if the crimes they are planning carry the death penalty.
This prison sentence will also be applied if the crimes planned carry a jail
sentence of 10 years or more, according to the bill.
The government maintains that the bill is needed to protect against potential
acts of terrorism that may occur during the Olympics in Tokyo, with Abe's
administration claiming that the latest version of the bill is less invasive
than previous versions that were submitted and failed.
But opposition parties, lawyers and civic groups have voiced major concerns
that the bill will lead to the government being allowed to invade the privacy
of ordinary citizens and unjustly punish civic groups and labor unions and in
doing so possibly infringe on human rights.
The main opposition Democratic Party and three smaller allied parties that
filed the no-confidence motion Wednesday said the minor semantic revisions made
to the updated bill do little to quash fears that investigative authorities
could be granted arbitrary powers of search by the government.
The Democratic Party blasted the bill during its first task-force meeting on
the issue last month with the party's Diet affairs chief Kazunori Yamanoi
stating that the party must raise a great national uproar over the bill and
attack Kaneda in thorough deliberations on the issue.
All 4 major opposition parties are united in killing the bill and have vowed
not to allow it to pass through parliament and into law, stating that the bill
was no different to former iterations submitted to parliament that were
subsequently scrapped.
They previously claimed that the bill will erode the integrity of the criminal
code in Japan by allowing people to be charged in connections with crimes that
have not been committed.
Opponents to the legislation also believe that the scope of the bill is not
limited to terrorist groups and could be applied in an arbitrary manner by law
enforcement personnel, despite the government's arguments to the contrary.
The latest draft of the controversial bill states that the charge of conspiracy
will be applied to organized crime groups with the punishments being levied at
groups of 2 or more people.
Punishments will follow in cases where at least 1 member has secured funds for
their activities or been involved in reconnaissance activities regarding a
target location, the bill also states.
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations stated previously that the bill is
ambiguous in its scope and its vagueness regarding the definition of terrorist
organizations and crime groups could lead to the undue punishment of innocent
civilians and groups.
Civic groups and individual protesters have been taking to the streets with
large groups gathering in Tokyo in front of the Diet building and outside the
prime minister's office, holding banners and shouting slogans claiming the bill
will serve to squash any groups that stand opposed to the government and that
the bill is undemocratic.
Protesters have also said the bill could take away people's civil rights, is in
violation of the constitution and could be the next example of Abe's
administration abusing its majority in parliament to pass laws unilaterally, as
was the case with the highly-contentious security laws.
While Abe's ruling bloc will almost certainly use its majority to shoot down
Wednesday's no-confidence motion, the bill being put in front of a committee
vote will take place on Friday at the earliest and its passage through the
lower house could be pushed back until next Tuesday as the opposition camp
redouble their efforts to block its passage at every stage.
(source: xinhuanet.com)
BANGLADESH:
23 get death for killing 4 Narayanganj Awami League activists
23 people including a BNP leader have been awarded death penalty for killing 4
activists of Awami League and its student wing Bangladesh Chhatra League of
Araihazar of Narayanganj in 2002.
Kamrunnahar, judge of Narayanganj Second Additional District and Sessions
Judge's Court, pronounced the verdict today, Additional Public Prosecutor
Jasmine Ahmed confirmed our district correspondent.
Among the 23 convicts, 4 are on the run while 19 others including Abul Bashar
Kashu, the then BNP president of Gopaldi union unit, were present at the dock.
According to the prosecution, Kashu and his people picked up Barek, his cousin
Badal, Faruk and Kabir from their respective houses on March 12 in 2002. Later,
they tortured and burnt them to death.
Of them, Barek, younger brother of BCL president of Araihazar thana unit and
upazila vice chairman Rafiqul Islam, was involved with Chhatra League
activities while Faruk and Kabir were AL activists.
After the delivery of the verdict, Additional Public Prosecutor Jasmine has
expressed satisfaction over the judgement.
(source: The Daily Star)
SINGAPORE:
Amnesty International calls for scheduled execution for Muhammad Ridzuan be
halted
Amnesty International today called on the Singapore authorities to halt the
execution of a Singaporean man scheduled for Friday 19 May 2017 and to
immediately re-establish a moratorium on all executions with a view to
abolishing the death penalty.
Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali, a 32 year old-Singaporean national, was sentenced
to death on 10 April 2013 after he was convicted of trafficking diamorphine
under the Misuse of Drugs Act. His 4 subsequent appeals were rejected, most
recently in December 2016. His family learned of the rejection of his clemency
application on 15 May 2017.
In 2013 the High Court judge found that Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's
involvement was restricted to that of a "courier". Since November 2012, the
courts of Singapore have had the discretion not to impose the death penalty in
certain circumstances. In drug trafficking cases, defendants may be spared the
death penalty if they are found to have been involved only in transporting,
sending or delivering a prohibited substance, or only offered to commit these
acts (as "couriers") and if the Public Prosecutor can certify that they
cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau to disrupt further drug-related
activities. Both conditions must be met in order for judges to have the
discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with caning or death.
However, the Attorney General refused to issue a certificate of cooperation in
Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's case and he was therefore sentenced to the
mandatory death penalty. Mohammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali's co-defendant, who was
also convicted of drug trafficking and found to be a "courier" at the same
trial in 2013, was instead issued with a certificate of cooperation by the
prosecution and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
International human rights law requires that the use of the death penalty be
restricted to the "most serious crimes".
The UN Human Rights Committee has on numerous occasions found that drug-related
offences do not meet the criterion of "most serious crimes", a finding
reiterated by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions and the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty is against international human
rights law. The UN Human Rights Committee has said that "the automatic
imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life,
in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed
without any possibility of taking into account the defendant's personal
circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence".
Furthermore, under Singaporean law, when there is a presumption of drug
possession for the aim of trafficking, the burden of proof shifts from the
prosecutor to the defendant. This violates the right to a fair trial and the
presumption of innocence. Amnesty International calls on the authorities of
Singapore to immediately halt the execution of Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali and
any other prisoners and swiftly move to abolish the death penalty once and for
all.
The authorities of Singapore introduced a moratorium on executions in July
2012, to allow the Parliament to review the country's mandatory death penalty
laws. Since executions resumed in 2014, the authorities of Singapore have
executed at least 11 people, including eight convicted of drug trafficking and
3 of murder. At least 7 new mandatory death sentences were imposed for drug
trafficking in 2016 and at least 38 people were on death row at the end of the
year.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally as a violation
of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. As of today, 141
countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; in the Asia
Pacific region, 19 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes
and a further eight are abolitionist in practice. There is no evidence that the
death penalty has a unique deterrent effect on crime.
(source: theonlinecitizen.com)
***************************
ADPAN calls on Singapore to immediately halt the imminent execution of Muhammad
Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali
The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) urges the government of Singapore
to halt the execution of Mr Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali, 31, now said to be
scheduled on 19 May 2017. We call on the President of the Republic of Singapore
Tony Tan Keng Yam to show mercy and grant Ridzuan clemency.
Muhammaad Ridzuan and Abdul Haleem were both convicted for 2 charges of
trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA read with s 34 of the
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). However, only Abdul Haleem received the
certificate of substantive assistance. This resulted in them receiving
different sentences. Abdul Haleem was sentenced to life imprisonment and 24
strokes of the cane, and Muhammaad Ridzuan was given the mandatory death
sentence.
In Singapore, for drug offences carrying the mandatory death penalty, it is
only when the Public Prosecutor issues the certificate of substantive
assistance pursuant to s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008
Rev Ed) will the courts have the discretion to hand down other sentences, other
than the death penalty. In Muhammaad Ridzuan's case, despite having provided
the necessary information to the Central Narcotics Bureau as to who gave him
the drugs, with full name and identification, he was not given the Certificate,
thus leaving the judge with no choice but to sentence him to death.
ADPAN is disheartened by the seemingly arbitrary issuance of the Certificates
of Substantive Assistance by the prosecution. Discretion on sentencing must be
with the courts. It is totally unjustifiable for the Public Prosecutor to have
the ultimate power to decide who gets issued the Certificate, consequently, who
gets to live or who not.
While we understand Singapore's public health concerns on the entry of illegal
drugs, we strongly oppose the use of death penalty as a solution. There is no
evidence of efficacy of the death penalty in solving addiction or the entry of
prohibited substances, even in Singapore. Despite carrying out executions, the
Singaporean authorities continue to arrest drug mules and intercept large
amounts of illegal drugs. The death penalty has shown to be not a deterrent.
Ridzuan was not raised in the best of circumstances, having to grapple with
poverty that pushed him into working a series of jobs to contribute to his
family's income. Ridzuan did not get the best opportunities in life and he has
realised his wrongdoings while in prison, and we believe he has demonstrated
the potential for rehabilitation. His family has attested how he renewed
showing more maturity in his words and actions. The execution on Friday, if to
take place, will deprive a changed man of his right to life. In a statement,
his family have pointed out that there would be no opportunity for him to
commit a similar crime if his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
The death penalty is an affront to human dignity. It disregards the right to
life, the very basis of all human rights. ADPAN believes that these rights
should be protected by the State at all times. We therefore ask the President
and the Government of Singapore to show mercy and stop Ridzuan's execution, and
to establish a moratorium on all executions with a view to abolishing the death
penalty.
Ngeow Chow Ying; For and on behalf of the ADPAN Executive Committee
The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is an independent cross-regional
network committed to working for an end to the death penalty across the Asia
Pacific region. ADPAN is made up of NGOs, organizations, civil society groups,
lawyers and individual members, not linked to any political party, religion or
government and campaigns against the death penalty. It currently has members in
28 countries: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Denmark, France, Hong
Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,
New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sri
Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam, UK, USA.
(source: adpan.org)
****************
2 charged for same crime but only 1 will hang - Prosecutor's role raises
questions
The 2 men were charged for the same crime of drug trafficking but because of a
technicality, only 1 of them will be hanged.
On Wednesday, his clemency appeal to the President was rejected. In Singapore,
clemency petitions are decided by the Cabinet, and the President has no choice
but to accede to it.
The fate of 32-year old Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali is now sealed, pending some
miracle, and he will be executed on Friday.
He was arrested along with Abdul Haleem in 2010 for trafficking 72.5g of heroin
into Singapore.
Abdul Haleem, however, was spared the death sentence because he was granted the
Certificate of Cooperation (COC) by the Prosecutor, while Muhammad was denied
one.
Muhammad's pending execution has thus once again shines the spotlight on what
anti-death penalty activists call a flaw in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) - the
Public Prosecutor's powers vis a vis the COC.
In Singapore, the Attorney General is also the Public Prosecutor, unlike in
some other countries where the 2 roles are separate.
Under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), a trafficker can be spared the
death sentence if he satisfies 2 criteria:
That his role in trafficking drugs was that of a courier, and nothing more
That the Prosecutor has issued him a COC
The convict should also have helped in "disrupting drug trafficking activities
within or outside Singapore."
The Prosecutor, during the court case, has in fact certified that Muhammad was
a mere courier. However, for unknown reasons, the Prosecutor also decided not
to issue him the COC which would have allowed Muhammad to apply to the court to
have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the
cane, as was the case with Abdul Haleem.
"Despite the finding by the Court that Ridzuan was a mere courier, the Public
Prosecutor refused to give Ridzuan a certificate of substantial assistance,"
Eugene Thuraisingam, Muhammad's lawyer, posted on his Facebook page following
the president's rejection of clemency.
"The Public Prosecutor however gave his joint trafficker, Abdul Haleem a
certificate of substantial assistance. Ridzuan was therefore sentenced to
death, while Abdul Haleem was given a certificate of substantial assistance and
sentence to life imprisonment."
During sentencing by the courts, Abdul Haleem had asked to be given the same
sentence as Muhammad Ridzuan, if the latter was sent to the gallows.
The Straits Times reported the exchange between Abdul Haleem and judge Tay Yong
Kwang:
Choking with emotion, he [Abdul Haleem] told Justice Tay Yong Kwang: "If you
are sparing my life and not sparing his life, I???d rather go down with him."
But the judge replied: "The court does not have complete discretion to do
whatever you want me do."
Abdul Haleem then pointed out that he and his friend faced the same charges.
The judge told him: "You have certification from the Attorney-General's
Chambers, he does not."
In effect, the Public Prosecutor now has power over the courts as well: if the
Public Prosecutor does not issue a convict with the COC, the courts cannot
commute his sentence.
Yet, in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), the Prosecutor's decision making, in
whether a COC is issued or not, is shrouded in secrecy and not even the highest
court in the land, the Court of Appeal, can question it, or conduct a judicial
review of it unless "it is proved to the court that the determination was done
in bad faith or with malice."
The MDA states:
"THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN
HIS SOLE DISCRETION. NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL LIE AGAINST THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR IN RELATION TO ANY SUCH DETERMINATION UNLESS IT IS PROVED TO THE
COURT THAT THE DETERMINATION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH OR WITH MALICE."
In short, the Prosecutor has iron-clad, virtually unfettered powers to decide
whether a person gets to live or die.
Such dubious decisions, done behind closed doors and with complete
non-transparency, can result in inexplicable outcomes, as it is with
Muhammad???s case, where 2 men charged for the same crime can receive exactly
opposite punishments.
"Ridzuan told the [Central Narcotics Bureau] who gave him the drugs," said his
sister Noraisah. "He gave them a description, with full name and
identification. I feel that this information is quite strong, and I don't know
why they said that they are still not happy with it."
No one knows why the Prosecutor decided to issue Abdul Haleem the COC, while
denying the same to Muhammad Ridzuan because the Prosecutor is not required by
law to release or explain his reasons, either to the convict's lawyers or even
to his family.
Everything is decided behind a veil of silence and secrecy.
It is disturbing that a person can be condemned to his death just because he is
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police in "disrupting drug
trafficking activities within or outside Singapore."
Whether drug trafficking activities are "disrupted" or not depends on so many
different factors, most of which would be beyond the control of the inmate.
For example, it would depend on whether the authorities actually act on
information provided by the inmate.
It would also depend on whether the authorities take the appropriate action, or
are competent in doing so.
And how would an inmate incarcerated on death row in Changi Prison in Singapore
be able to "disrupt" drug activities "outside Singapore"? Would this not depend
entirely on how the authorities act on the information provided by the inmate?
With the law prohibiting any judicial review or questioning of the Prosecutor's
decision, except when such decision is proved to have been made on bad faith or
malice, there really is no way of knowing if the Prosecutor has done the right
or necessary thing in acting on the information provided by the inmate.
Clearly, this practice of vesting the Prosecutor with so much power is highly
flawed.
His decision and decision-making process are effectively unquestionable, giving
him seemingly unfettered authority.
Such absurdity has resulted in decisions which allow one person to be spared
death while another, charged for the same crime, is sent to the gallows.
The rule of law insists that decisions, especially those involving capital
punishment which are irreversible, must be made according to the law, and must
be opened to review or question.
In 2011, lawyer M Ravi filed a constitutional challenge on the case of Yong Vui
Kong, which centred on whether the Cabinet's decision in granting clemency is
opened to judicial review.
The Court of Appeal, in its ruling, said "the making of a clemency decision
pursuant to Art 22P is now 'not a private act of grace from an individual
happening to possess power ... [but] a part of the [c]onstitutional scheme'."
Article 22P refers to the president's powers to grant clemencies.
The Court of Appeal said that if "conclusive evidence is produced to the court
to show that the Cabinet never met to consider the offender's case at all, or
that the Cabinet did not consider the Art 22P(2) materials placed before it and
merely tossed a coin to determine what advice to give to the President, the
Cabinet would have acted in breach of Art 22P(2)."
The Court added:
"IF THE COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE TO CORRECT A BREACH OF ART 22P OF THIS NATURE,
THE RULE OF LAW WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY."
Would it also not follow that if the courts are unable to intervene and
question the Prosecutor's decision on granting the COC, there is a risk that
the Prosecutor could make an erroneous decision based on wrong facts or even on
superficial whims which, under existing laws, could result in the death of an
inmate?
Yet the law says such decisions "shall be at the sole discretion of the Public
Prosecutor... unless it is proved to the court that the determination was done
in bad faith or with malice."
The granting, or not, of a COC by the Prosecutor, to borrow the words of the
Court of Appeal, is 'not a private act of grace from an individual happening to
possess power.'
It is in fact from constitutional powers vested in him which should make him
accountable, and not protected behind a wall of opacity.
And if he is to be accountable, then surely his decisions must be opened to
judicial review.
Why was Haleem Abdul spared death, while Muhammad Ridzuan was not?
How is it that a person can be condemned to death just simply because he is
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police?
How did we arrive at a law which says that not cooperating with the police is,
effectively, a capital offence?
(source: theindependent.sg)
INDIA:
Death for 2 convicts in Thane gangrape-murder: Rarest of rare, says court,
draws parallel with Delhi case----'Apart from the sheer brutality of their act,
their apathy towards human life is reflected from their behaviour', says the
court order; convicts had raped 2 ragpicker women and assaulted them with sharp
weapons, killing 1 of them
sessions court that sentenced 2 men to death last week in a case of gangrape
and murder has observed that the case falls within the purview of the "rarest
of rare" category owing to its brutality and the fact that the accused took
advantage of 2 women by luring them with the promise of a job.
"Apart from the sheer brutality of their act, their apathy towards human life
is reflected from their behaviour of taking the girls from the railway station
by saying that they will provide them job and instead...took both the victims
to another place and thereafter committed offence. (It) also discloses that
they have breached the trust of the victims, therefore, it clearly indicates
that this would really fall within the category of rarest of rare case," the
court has said in its detailed order.
The victims, who worked as ragpickers, were promised a catering job by the 2
accused, Rahimuddin Shaikh and Sandip Shirsath, in 2012. The 2 women were
eventually taken to an isolated spot in CBD Belapur in Navi Mumbai and made to
consume liquor by the accused. After that, the 2 women were allegedly raped and
also assaulted with sharp weapons, including a hacksaw blade and a knife. While
both the women were left to die, 1 of them managed to escape. A rickshaw-puller
saw her lying unconscious in an injured state and informed the police. She had
sustained 16 injuries on her body, including on her neck, legs and stomach and
remained in a hospital for almost a month for treatment.
The court heavily relied on the deposition of the survivor, who was around
18-19 years old at the time of the incident. The court also relied on the
statement of a colleague of the 2 accused who worked as caterers. The colleague
had told the court that on the day of the incident, the men returned to their
staff room in an inebriated state and claimed to have killed a woman. He
claimed that since the men were drunk, he did not pay attention to their claim.
On the next day, when he read in the newspaper that a woman was found raped and
killed in Belapur, he realised it could have been his colleagues and informed
the police when he was approached for inquiry, he told the court.
The defence claimed that the men were falsely implicated and said the chemical
analyser report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory were inconclusive
as no semen was detected on the victims. They further argued that no injuries
were found on the private parts of the victims and the results of DNA tests
conducted on the accused were also not received. The court, however, concluded
that the absence of injury on private parts is not a ground to conclude there
was no rape as the victims could have been threatened and hence, did not
resist.
The court also referred to the recent confirmation of death penalty to the
accused in the December 16, 2012 gangrape in Delhi to conclude that the present
case also falls in the rarest of rare category for the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was committed. The court also said since the men
returned to their workplace in a drunken state after the incident, it indicates
they had no remorse.
The court also turned down the defence's contention that since the victims had
consumed liquor, it meant "passive consent" for the act. The court observed
that in the incident, one victim ended up dead as she was assaulted with a
hexablade (sic) and a knife and the other victim too was assaulted after being
raped. "So the evidence shows that both of them had never consented for the
alleged act of rape, if they would have consented for that then such brutal act
would not have occurred," the court observed in its 97-page judgment. It
directed the 2 accused to pay Rs 15,000 each as compensation to the injured
victim and the kin of the deceased victim. The District Legal Services
Authority, Thane, has also been asked to recommend the quantum of compensation
to be paid to the victim.
(source: indianexpress.com)
PAKISTAN----executions
Pak executes 4 terrorists convicted by military courts
Pakistan Wednesday hanged 4 "hardcore" terrorists convicted of "heinous"
terrorism-related offences by controversial military courts in the restive
northwestern province, taking the number to over 160 since the Peshawar terror
attack in 2014.
The terrorists belonging to a banned outfit were executed in a jail in the
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, the worst hit due to violence by Taliban
terrorists.
"They were involved in committing heinous offences relating to terrorism,
including killing of innocent civilians, destruction of educational
institutions, attacking Armed Forces of Pakistan and Law Enforcement Agencies,"
the army said.
It said the terrorists were awarded death sentence by the military courts which
work in secrecy due to fear of attacks by militants.
Military courts were restored in March for another 2 years after their initial
2-year term expired in January.
The courts were set up after a constitutional amendment following a terror
attack on an Army-run school in Peshawar in December 2014 which killed more
than 150 people, most of them students.
Human rights group Justice Project Pakistan says 441 people have been executed
since the Peshawar attack.
Pakistan has been fighting various extremist groups for over a decade. Militant
attacks have killed tens of thousands of people.
The military courts have handed down the death penalty to more than 160
militants.
(source: business-standard.com)
IRAN:
DECKS ARE CLEARED FOR KEY EXECUTIONER TO BECOME NEXT PRESIDENT OF IRAN
The withdrawal of hard-line candidate Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf from Iran's
presidential election is a sure sign that the decks are being cleared to make
way for notorious executioner and former State Prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi. This
was the view expressed today by Struan Stevenson, international lecturer on the
Middle East and former Member of the European Parliament. Speaking in
Edinburgh, Mr Stevenson said: "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has
for some time now been critical of the incumbent president Hassan Rouhani, whom
he considers too weak to deal with the new muscular challenge posed by the
Trump administration. Khamenei has even criticised some of Rouhani's election
slogans where the president claimed the nuclear deal he brokered with the West
had removed 'the shadow of war' from Iran.
"Khamenei is alarmed at accusations by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who
has accused Iran of being the world's main sponsor of terror. He now wants
Rouhani to be removed from office and replaced by the ultra hard-line
executioner Raisi, a senior cleric who wears the black turban, signifying his
direct descendancy from the Prophet Mohammad. Raisi was a key member of the
'Death Commission' who in 1988 ordered the execution of over 30,000 political
prisoners. Clearly Raisi's blood-encrusted legacy is more appealing to Khamenei
than the record of the so-called 'moderate' Rouhani, under whose repressive
leadership more than 3,000 people have been executed since he took office in
2013, making Iran the world's number 1 death penalty nation per-capita.
"Clearly Khamenei has ordered Qalibaf to withdraw from the race, to avoid
splitting the hard-line ultra conservative vote in the 1st round of elections
on Friday 19th May. Khamenei's manipulation of the Iranian elections exposes
the fact that they are a sham and a scandal. Over 1,000 people initially
registered as potential candidates, only to be disqualified by the Supreme
Leader Khamenei. Those disqualified from standing even included former
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who although considered a fanatical tyrant by
the West, was also clearly thought to be too soft to face the new robust
approach from the US administration.
"There are increasing signs of widespread protests across Iran, with the
emergence of courageous posters and banners proclaiming support for regime
change and for the outlawed key democratic opposition movement the People's
Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI). Most of the 30,000 political prisoners hanged in 1988
by Ebrahim Raisi were supporters of the PMOI. Their ghosts may yet return to
haunt him."
Struan Stevenson, President of the European Iraqi Freedom Association (EIFA),
was a Member of the European Parliament representing Scotland (1999-2014). He
was President of the Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Iraq (2009-
2014) and Chair of Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup (Caucus) from 2004-2014.
(source: irannewsupdate.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
***@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty