Oct. 3
IRAN:
Iran Judiciary Chief Statement Sparks Fears of New Wave of Mass Executions of
Drug Offenders in Iran
Iran's head of Judiciary, Sadegh Amoli Larijani, recently said that the
Judiciary has no plans to abolish the death penalty and called on Iranian
judicial officials to not hesitate in carrying out the execution sentences for
alleged drug offenders. Amoli Larijani's official remarks were made on Thursday
September 29 in Mashhad, at the 13th annual conference for Iran's
revolutionary, military and public courts.
According to Iranian state run media, Fars, in his remarks Amoli Larijani
referred to drug traffickers as "merchants of death" and rejected calls for the
complete abolition of the death penalty for crimes related to drug trafficking.
"Executions are not necessarily desirable, but narcotics are a great detriment
to society and also shatter families. We have no choice but to confront the
issue quickly, swiftly, firmly, and decisively. We want prosecutors in the
country to not to hesitate in implementing the (death) sentences," said Amoli
Larijani. "We should not wait 3 years (before carrying out the execution
sentences), until the prisoner learns how to pray in order to get amnesty...It
is offensive to say that the death penalty is ineffective. If it wasn't for the
strictness of the Judiciary, the situation would be much worse."
Amoli Larijani's execution order comes 2 weeks after Mohammad Javad Larijani,
Iran's chief of the Judiciary's "human rights council", visited several
countries in Europe, including Italy, for human rights dialogue with European
officials.
Just last month, the deputy of the Judiciary Chief, Mohammad Bagher Olfat, said
that executing drug offenders in Iran has not decreased the volume of drugs:
"The reality is that the death penalty for drug traffickers has not acted as a
deterrent so far. We fought against many drug traffickers in accordance to the
law, but, unfortunately, the volume of drugs entering and transiting through
the country has increased...It is important to note that the individuals who
are being executed are not the main drug traffickers, because the main drug
traffickers are not involved in the shipment of drugs."
Iran Human Rights warns against mass executon of drug offenders after the
Judiciary chief's statements. "Iran may be entering a new period of a high
number of executions," says Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, spokesperson for Iran
Human Rights. In 2015, Iranian authorities executed nearly 1000 people on Sadeq
Amoli Larijani's orders. According to Iran Human Rights, majority of the
prisoners were executed on drug-related charges.
"When the Judiciary Chief instructs prosecuters to not hesitate in carrying out
the execution sentences for drug offenders or to wait until the prisoners gain
eligibility for amnesty, he is actually giving the execution order of thousands
of prisoners at a much higher speed than before. The international community
must take Mr. Larijani's execution order seriously. One option is that the
UNODC could halt its anti-narcotic cooperation with Iran," says
Amiry-Moghaddam. "While several top Iranian officials, among them Mr. Olfat,
have admitted that executions are not a deterrent against drugs, Mr. Amoli
Larijani, without presenting any new evidence, has claimed the opposite."
According to Iran Human Rights, Iranian authorities have executed at least 65
people in the past month. 51 of these executions were reportedly carried out
for drug-related offenses.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
***************
People in Ahvaz protest against execution of 2 youths
On Thursday, September 29, a group of Ahvazi youths staged a protest at night
against the Iranian regime by setting up fire and chanting anti-government
slogans in Enqelab Avenue in the south-western city of Ahvaz to show their
protest against the execution of 2 young ethnic Arabs of the city.
The 2 youths were Adnan Mazban al-Amouri and Ali Sharif al-Amouri, residents of
Ghaleh Chan'an in Khuzestan province (south-western Iran), who were executed on
Wednesday September 28 in Gohardasht Prison (north-west of Tehran) allegedly on
the charges of "armed robbery" and "acting against national security."
According to the regime's state-run Tasnim news agency, these two young people
were charged with "Moharebeh (enmity against God)" and sentenced to death by
Branch 15 of Tehran's revolutionary court. Their sentences were then confirmed
by Branch 14 of Supreme Court and implemented on Wednesday morning in
Gohardasht (Rajai-Shahr) Prison in Karaj.
1 of the relatives of the al-Amouris pointed out that the men did not receive
due process and there was discrimination in the implementation of the sentence.
The relative said: "Discrimination is evident in all the affairs of this
country. Why the 1st and 2nd row defendants were not executed but the 3rd and
4th row defendants were executed, because they were Arabs."
He continued: "We protested against the sentence in all (government)
institutions but corruption and bribery have penetrated everywhere and we were
not able to pay the brokers and intermediaries."
(source: NCR-Iran)
SINGAPORE:
Maintaining the legitimacy of capital punishment in S'pore
In clockwork fashion since 2008, the United Nations General Assembly has
deliberated every 2 years the question of a moratorium on the use of the death
penalty, with a view to abolishing it. As the death penalty remains in our
statutes, Singapore is a prominent retentionist state in the serious debate on
the death penalty.
Last month, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan put forth Singapore's
"contrarian views" on the death penalty at a high-level side event at the
assembly.
Noting that the debate is a "heated, painful and emotional one", he affirmed
Singapore's belief that "all human life is sacred" and the paramount objective
to protect all human life.
Like his predecessor in 2014, he posited that the relevant question in the
debate on the death penalty was "whether in very limited circumstances, it is
legitimate to have the death penalty so that the larger interest of society is
served".
Thus, the rights of the offenders must be weighed against the rights of the
victims and their families, and the "broader rights of the community and
society to live in peace and security".
Dr Balakrishnan stated that capital punishment for certain drug-related
offences and for murder is a "key element" in keeping Singapore drug-free and
safe. He reiterated that every state has the sovereign right and duty "to
decide for itself what works, and to take into account its own circumstances".
We must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of life even as we calibrate
the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between those who commit
serious crimes, and the victims and their families, and the rest of society.
Singapore's position on the death penalty is more nuanced than the
abolitionists' austere characterisation of states that retain it as essentially
having an abiding commitment to the death penalty. In 2012, Parliament made
significant amendments to the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, marking a
shift from the longstanding mandatory to a discretionary death penalty system.
In murder where the killing was unintentional, the court has the discretion to
sentence the accused to death or life imprisonment. The court may also order
caning in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment.
Similarly, the Act provides that if a person was convicted of drug trafficking,
the death penalty would not be imposed if two conditions are fulfilled. First,
he must have only been a courier, not involved in any other activity related to
the supply or distribution of drugs. Second, he had substantively cooperated
with the Central Narcotics Bureau, or he has a mental disability, which
substantially impaired his appreciation of the gravity of drug trafficking.
These amendments do not lessen the severity of drug trafficking offences. They,
however, recognise that couriers, a crucial part of the illicit drugs supply
chain, are morally less culpable than the drug syndicate leaders who direct
drug couriers. Executing drug mules will not deal with the root causes of the
serious crime of drug trafficking.
The Government has determined that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) may not be
needed for all types of serious crimes. This is an important first step,
notwithstanding the attraction and force of the MDP was its unequivocal
demonstration of zero tolerance and resolve in maximum deterrence.
Yet, the shift to the discretionary death penalty regime should not be
misconstrued as Singapore letting up on drug trafficking and murders. Instead,
this shift was necessary to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our
administration of criminal justice.
Giving our Supreme Court judges the discretion in sentencing empowers them to
weigh the relevant factors and the mitigating circumstances, and to
individualise sentencing. By tempering justice with mercy, the punishment meted
out can better fit the crime, and offenders given a second chance in
appropriate cases.
To be sure, there are increasing - and more strident - calls for the complete
abolishment of the death penalty. In the past few years, the UN Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment has urged UN member states to consider whether the death penalty
fails to respect the inherent dignity of the person, causes severe mental and
physical pain and suffering, and amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading punishment.
Singapore has rejected the link between the death penalty and torture, cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment.
The European Union and the UN have called for a moratorium on the use of the
death penalty. The moratorium has gained traction, as shown by the voting
records at the UN assembly. In 2014, the draft on the moratorium on the use of
the death penalty was adopted with a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 37
against, with 34 abstentions. In 2012, it was 110-39-36. In 2010, it was
107-38-36.
Singapore has consistently voted against the resolution on the moratorium on
the use of the death penalty.
Besides Singapore, the list of retentionist states include Afghanistan, China,
India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Nevertheless,
Singapore has not ignored or disregarded the international developments. While
there is still no international consensus against the death penalty, the list
of abolitionist states grows slowly but surely, suggesting that there might be
inexorable movement towards its abolition.
Singapore's execution figures have declined significantly since the 1990s but
the overall crime situation has not worsened; in many respects, it has
improved. Could our tough stance on crime continue to work well without the
death penalty?
Given the conflicting empirical data elsewhere, however, both abolitionists and
retentionists have immense difficulties proving their case persuasively and
compellingly. Statistics alone will not resolve the deep divide between the 2
camps.
The Singapore Court of Appeal has consistently ruled that the MDP is
constitutional and not in breach of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the
Singapore Constitution. On whether capital punishment legislation should be
modified or repealed, it took the view that these "policy issues ... in the
exercise of its legislative powers ... is for Parliament, and not the courts,
to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of
punishment for serious criminal offences".
I regard the discretionary death penalty regime as a determined expression at
maintaining the legitimacy of our capital punishment regime. More
significantly, it manifests our ability to get out of the force of habit,
convenience, and reliance on our long-held dogma that the MDP is necessary to
deal with the most serious crimes.
There is, as yet, no public clamour in Singapore for abolishing the death
penalty. While there is no authoritative study on public attitudes towards the
death penalty, various past surveys point to support for its retention. There
appears to be healthy public trust and confidence that the death penalty regime
in Singapore has the requisite deterrent effect on criminals and has sufficient
safeguards.
Nonetheless, the authorities face the continuing imperative of demonstrating
that the death penalty regime works well and is in accord with societal values
and norms. In this regard, we must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of
life even as we calibrate the appropriate balance of rights and
responsibilities between those who commit serious crimes, and the victims and
their families, and the rest of society.
Regular and robust reviews are necessary to evaluate the need and use of the
death penalty as an integral part of the administration of criminal justice in
Singapore.
Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining
features of our society.
Keeping our criminal justice system relevant and legitimate in the face of
changing realities and the rapidly evolving crime situation is vital in
maintaining public confidence, while also keeping faith with the values that
Singaporeans regard as important.
(source: Eugene K.B. Tan; The writer is associate professor of law at the
Singapore Management University School of Law----The Striats Times)
INDIA:
Supreme Court Confirms Death Penalty To Serial Killer BA Umesh
The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed death penalty to serial killer BA Umesh.
The court's division bench dismissed his review petition.
The apex court said, "Dismissed his plea for review of death penalty."
Earlier Karnataka High Court had also confirmed BA Umesh's death penalty.
The former CRPF constable was arrested for the rape and murder of Jayashree
Maradi Subbaiah, 37, and sentenced to death by a fast-track court in 2006. His
mercy plea was rejected by the President on May 12, 2013.
(source: News World India)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
