Rick Halperin
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:26:07 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
July 26 IRAN: Iran plans mass execution: report Iran is planning a mass execution of 30 people convicted of murder and drug trafficking, in the biggest such event in recent years, a local newspaper reported on Saturday. "Thirty people convicted of murder, drug trafficking, illegal relationships... will be executed on Sunday at dawn," the Aftab newspaper quoted Tehran's prosecutor office as saying. It would be the largest mass execution in the Islamic republic in recent years. In January, Iran hanged 13 people including the mother of 2 young children who had been found guilty of murdering her husband. The prosecutor's office said that the verdicts against the 30 people had been approved by "high judicial authorities". It said 20 of those on death row were convicted drug traffickers. The remaining 10, identified as "murderer thugs" were also convicted of "disturbing public security and disorder, beating up people, repeated robberies, having illegal relationships and showing up drunk in public". The location of the planned executions was not given. Hangings often take place inside prisons but can be carried out in public in Iran. In January, Iran's judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi decreed that public executions would only be carried out with his approval and "based on social necessities". Human rights groups have accused Iran of making excessive use of the death penalty but Tehran insists it is an effective deterrent that is carried out only after an exhaustive judicial process. Iran has so far hanged at least 126 in this year, according to an AFP count. Amnesty International reported that in 2007 Iran applied the death penalty more often than any other country apart from China, executing 317 people during the year. Capital offences in the Islamic republic include murder, rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking and adultery. Earlier this month, it emerged that the Iranian parliament was considering a bill which could see the death penalty also used for those deemed to promote corruption, prostitution and apostasy on the Internet. Last week, an Iranian rights group, Volunteer Lawyers' Network, said that Iran planned to stone 8 women and 1 man sentenced for adultery despite a moratorium on such executions. The French presidency of the European Union said it was "deeply concerned" over the fate of the 9. Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is still theoretically punishable by stoning, which involves the public hurling stones at the convict buried up to his waist. A woman is buried up to her shoulders. A 2002 directive by Shahrudi imposed a moratorium on such executions. However, in July 2007 the Islamic republic drew international outrage by stoning to death a man convicted of adultery. (source: Agence France Presse) SOUTH KOREA: Capital Punishment: Justice or Cruelty? ---- For some, it's immoral, for others the only just response With the continued liberalization of society and the increase in concern among the public regarding human rights abuses, people have increasingly begun to question the legitimacy of capital punishment. Is capital punishment the only viable method with which to bring appropriate justice to those who commit the most heinous of crimes? Or is it an unfair and brutal practice that denies the basic rights that are inherent to any human being? This article will aim to present an impartial and accurate outline of both sides of the argument. 'Capital Punishment = Cruelty' With organizations such as Amnesty International calling it "the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights," many have begun to turn their backs on capital punishment. Some of their main arguments can be outlined and summarized as follows: 1. Capital punishment is a characteristic of underdeveloped societies. Many opponents of capital punishment will point out that the vast majority of the world's developed countries have abolished the death penalty (with exceptions being countries such as Singapore, the United States, and Japan). Thus, they argue, capital punishment is a trait of underdeveloped nations. Some even claim that it is inevitable that capital punishment will be eventually eradicated as the world moves towards a more democratic, developed, and civilized direction. 2. It costs more than alternative methods. Contrary to popular belief, capital punishment actually tends to cost more than alternative methods. The State of Maryland found that "death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case." Additionally, the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research found that "In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48 % more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment." Finally, the results of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice's study on the costs of capital punishment in comparison to life in prison were as follows: "the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ($232.7 million per year) and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)." Much of the enormous costs come from the lengthy appeals processes that often accompany capital cases. Furthermore, capital cases require more funding for investigative costs and special motions. 3. The death penalty does not stop crime. This is an argument that can go for both sides. There is not a clear piece of evidence that points to one side of the debate. Proponents of this argument may point out that many countries without the death penalty has a lower crime rate than the US, which still utilizes capital punishment. 4. It eliminates the possibility of a 2nd chance and redemption. Many people criticize the death penalty as simply being too harsh. They believe that the death penalty eliminates any possibility of repentance and redemption. They argue that people inevitably make mistakes and must be given at least a 2nd chance. Furthermore, proponents of this argument often cite examples in which prisoners on death row allegedly repent genuinely for their past crimes. They argue that capital punishment keeps such prisoners from paying back for their sins and gain a new start in their lives as more productive members of society. 5. It is hypocritical and simply immoral. Many ask the question, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong?" They argue that it simply does not make sense to discourage killing by killing and that it is comparable to "fighting fire with fire." Therefore, they argue, it is simply immoral to forbid murder as an unethical act, yet punish the criminals by, in a sense, murdering them. 6. It is often motivated by racial preference. Organizations such as Amnesty International argue that there are racial disparities in the implementation of the death penalty. They note that according to certain statistics, defendants are much more likely to be given the death sentence if they are African American, especially if the victim is white. Several reports do point to this notion. For example, a Yale University Law School study found that "African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring." 7. It will inevitably kill innocent victims. This is perhaps the most compelling argument against the death penalty. It is an undeniable fact that the death penalty takes innocent victims' lives. It is obviously impossible to determine the exact number of innocent convicts that were punished by the death penalty. According to Amnesty International, "Since 1973, more than 125 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row." There are many people who claim that they would support the death penalty if there were a way with which to guarantee that no innocent life would be taken by the system. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois has stated, "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life. Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." 'Capital Punishment = Justice' On the other hand, much of the public continues to maintain their confidence in capital punishment. Their sentiments may perhaps be synopsized by a quote from J. Edgar Hoover, "Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice?" Some of the main arguments in favor of the death penalty are as follows: 1. Capital punishment serves as an effective deterrence for crime. First, many would argue that capital punishment is the most effective way to deter crime. Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver who co-authored a study on the effectiveness of capital punishment, is quoted as saying, "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it. The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect." On the international level, the most compelling evidence by far may be Singapore. Singapore has the highest capital punishment to population ratio in the world. While this policy has bred its fair share of proponents and critics, it is undeniable that Singapore enjoys an extraordinarily low level of violent crime. Currently, Singapore has .49 murders per 100,000 people per year. Proponents of this argument may then point out that France, on the other hand, has a significantly higher murder rate of 1.63 per 100,000 people, despite being a developed country without the death penalty. Another piece of evidence may be the fact that homicides in Britain doubled since the death penalty was abolished in the country in 1964 (from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1.42 per 100,000). Against the argument that the US, despite having the death penalty, has a much higher murder rate than many countries without the death penalty, proponents of capital punishment would point out that the death penalty is carried out inconsistently in the US. In other words, the type of punishment can vary for the same crime in the US. They would compare this case to Singapore, where the criminal would know for certain that he would receive the death penalty for a given crime even before committing the crime. Using Singapore's impeccable safety record as an example, the proponents would assert that the death penalty is undeniably effective so long as it is implemented in a consistent manner. 2. It provides appropriate retribution/justice. Many believe that only the death penalty can match the extremely heinous nature of some crimes. It is the single method of punishment, they argue, that provides physical and definitive punishment that the criminal cannot escape from. Thus, capital punishment is the only method with which the criminal can receive what he or she truly deserves. People who subscribe to the notion of "eye for an eye" may find this argument especially appealing. John Stuart Mill, a 19th century philosopher and reformer, is quoted as saying, "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall." 3. It effectively incapacitates the criminal. Advocates of this argument argue that capital punishment is the only way to guarantee 100 percent that the criminal will not repeat the crime. They argue that any form of rehabilitation is uncertain at best, and that there will always be a risk factor. Executing the criminal, they argue, would eliminate any risk that the criminal may potentially pose. 4. It provides a peace of mind for the families of the victims. Many would argue that the families of the victims are being ignored in this equation. In a sense, they argue, are they not the ones that deserve the most because of their suffering? They ask -- is it not immoral even to consider the rights of the criminal whilst ignoring what the families of the victims may be going through? In many instances, executing the criminal may be the only way to bring the family true peace of mind. Such feelings are well summarized in this quote by the father of Jennifer Ertman, who was brutally murdered by Derrick Sean O'Brien, "I hope the son of a bitch rots in hell; he deserves it." 5. The Utilitarian Argument This is a relatively uncommon argument, but one that is sometimes used to counter the arguments that point out that innocent victims will inevitably be executed. Utilitarianism is the philosophy that emphasizes "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" (In other words, the greatest good for the society as a whole). Hence, supporters of this argument argue that although innocents will be killed, the overall benefits of capital punishment will outweigh its negative impacts. In other words, they argue that capital punishment will save more innocent lives than it will take. Hence, it can be extrapolated that having capital punishment will allow society to end up with more innocent people alive than without it. Nevertheless, the question remains: is capital punishment justice or cruelty? It remains to be seen how the death penalty will continue to be judged by society in the years to come. (source: OhmyNews International)