Oct. 24
PAKISTAN:
Schizophrenia and our Supreme Court
The recent furore which followed the Supreme Court judgment regarding
schizophrenia is not without cause: The Court has concluded that since
schizophrenia is "not a permanent mental disorder', it is "therefore, a
recoverable disease, which, in all the cases, does not fall within the
definition of 'mental disorder' as defined within the Mental Health Ordinance,
2001."
This judgment was passed in a petition filed by death-row prisoner Imdad Ali's
wife to delay his execution on the grounds that he was mentally ill and
therefore be allowed time to get medical treatment to be able to prepare his
will.
SC upholds death penalty for mentally ill man
Ali, from Burewala district of southern Punjab, was awarded death sentence in
2002 in a murder case. The latest petition must be distinguished from his
earlier appeal against the death sentence which was dismissed by the Supreme
Court in October 2015 and the mercy petition which was dismissed by the
President in November 2015. The judgment in the present Supreme Court case
followed the dismissal of the same request in the Lahore High Court in August
of this year and is based on the Court's understanding of schizophrenia.
It is unfortunate that the Mental Health Ordinance, though dealing in large
part with the management of the property of those suffering from a mental
disorder, does not make any reference to the manner in which such a person can
make a will. However, that lacuna is not the source of current public dismay.
Instead the reason is the glaringly obvious failure of the judgment in deeming
it "appropriate to ascertain what schizophrenia is" and then failing to take
into account any universally accepted medical definition of the illness. Rather
than looking at diagnostic tools - such as the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, and the International Classification of Diseases
and Related Health Problems - for guidance, the Court chose to rely on the
dictionary meaning of the disease in New Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language and Merriam Webster's online dictionary, among others. This lapse was
highlighted by a group of doctors in their open letter to President Mamnoon
Hussain titled "Save Imdad; Schizophrenia is a chronic and debilitating
disease".
Rights group urges Pakistan not to hang mentally ill man
In addition, the judges extrapolated upon two Indian cases from 1977 and 1988,
the latter of which reached the jaw-dropping conclusion that "I do not use the
word 'schizophrenia' because I do not think any such disease exists...". In
fact, it is worth noting that the case judgment from 1988 (AIR 1988 SC 2260)
was given in the context of a dissolution of marriage. So not just is that
judgment almost 3 decades old, but it also dealt with circumstances which had
less at stake than the current case, in which the outcome determines whether an
individual's right to life will be upheld or not. There is no doubt therefore
that Ali's case requires deeper scrutiny than simply a repetition of an
apparently dismissive and uninformed judgment from 1988. This is especially
true when looked at it in the context of the advances that medical sciences
have made in recent years in relation to understanding mental illness in
general and schizophrenia in particular. In short, therefore, it is clear that
the Court gave its binding judgment on what schizophrenia is without taking
into account the years of medical research that have gone into doing just that.
The consequence of the judgment's reliance on non-medical definitions and
outdated judgments was the conclusion that its lack of permanence meant that
schizophrenia did not fall within the statutory definition of mental disorder.
This is worrying on 2 fronts: Firstly, that it is now internationally
acknowledged by medical science that the condition is in fact largely
permanent, with medication only being able to manage but not cure the disease.
Secondly, the requirement of permanence, on which the judgment heavily relied,
is not actually a statutory requirement. "Mental disorder" in the Ordinance is
defined, not with a single definition, but as covering a spectrum of mental
illnesses, from mental impairment, severe personality disorder to severe mental
impairment. While the definition of one of these 3 types, namely severe
personality disorder, requires there to be a "persistent disorder or disability
of [the] mind", the other 2 defined types of mental disorder do not make any
reference to the requirement of permanence at all. Even further, the Ordinance
provides a catch-all provision to include "any other disorder or disability of
mind". The bottom line is that for the Supreme Court to determine that a
recognised and admittedly severe mental illness does not fall within the wide
definition in the Ordinance is clearly to misconstrue Parliament's intentions.
In any event, irrespective of whether the condition is temporary, permanent or
intermittent, it appears that in getting entangled in the definition of mental
illness, the Court lost sight of the real issue: Whether a prisoner suffering
from a diagnosed mental illness can be executed. This issue must be looked at
in light of the circumstances at the time that it came before the Supreme Court
and not in light of whether mental illness was established as a defence to the
crime in earlier judicial proceedings. However, the Supreme Court placed undue
emphasis on the latter without analysing the former in light of Pakistan???s
national and international obligations. To this end, no mention was made of the
fact that execution of a mentally ill prisoner is prohibited under customary
international law. In particular, the Court did not take into account the UN
Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death
Penalty (1984) which prohibits execution of "persons who have become insane" or
the resolution adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights (2000) urging
countries that retain the death penalty not to impose it "on a person suffering
from any form of mental disorder".
SC rules schizophrenia is 'not a mental disorder'
The Court's archaic view of the meaning of mental disorder coupled with its
failure to scrutinise Pakistan's obligations holistically, culminated in a
decision that can only be viewed as a breach of human rights for all mentally
ill prisoners on death row. As matters currently stand, the Pakistan Prison
Rules 1978 provide for the procedure to be followed in the case of a mentally
ill prisoner. In particular, Rule 441 requires that a mentally ill prisoner be
transferred to a psychiatric facility. However, contrary to its international
obligations, Pakistan does not have laws categorically prohibiting the
execution of those suffering from a mental disorder. Therefore, with a case
like Ali's which has been in the public eye, the Supreme Court had an
opportunity to flex its judicial muscle and spearhead the understanding and
acceptance of basic human rights in such cases - even if it was just to the
extent of the right to draft a will. Regrettably, however, that did not
transpire. Instead, no matter what one's opinions regarding the death penalty
are, the unfortunately drafted judgment is nothing short of a miscarriage of
justice and a drastic setback to medical advances in the already stigmatised
area of mental disorders.
(source: Hiba Thobani is an advocate who runs the legal aid not-for-profit
'Qaaf Se Qanoon', coaches law students in advocacy skills and believes in the
inherent power of the law to do good---The Express Tribune)
KENYA----mass commutation of nation's death sentences
Kenyan leader commutes death penalty for 2,700 convicts----President Uhuru
Kenyatta also pardons more than 100 prisoners as act of mercy
The death sentences of more than 2,700 death row inmates were commuted by
President Uhuru Kenyatta on Monday, officials said.
In a statement, Kenyatta's office said the death penalty imposed on 2,655 male
convicts and 92 women would be reduced to life imprisonment. A life sentence
under the Kenyan justice system expires at the end of a convict's natural life.
"President Uhuru Kenyatta has signed commutation documents commuting all death
sentences into life jail terms," the statement said.
Kenyatta also pardoned 102 long-serving convicts deemed to be rehabilitated
under a "power of mercy" provision in the constitution.
The development came the week after Kenyatta freed 7,000 inmates during the
Heroes Day celebrations to create jail space for corruption convicts.
President Mwai Kibaki was the last Kenyan leader to sign a mass commutation of
death sentences in 2009. The last execution is believed to have been conducted
in 1987.
(source: aa.com.tr)
GLOBAL:
8 Crimes the Bible warrants one to face the hangman
The bible in some instances support capital punishment. Abuse of parents among
other crimes warrants one the death penalty.
Here are some of the crimes in the Bible that deserve death penalty.
1. Blasphemy against God
Leviticus 24:14-16 "He who blasphemes the name of the lord shall be put to
death. The entire congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the
native when he blasphemes the name shall be put to death."
2. Murder
A number of Bible verses in the Bible says he who kills shall be put to death.
Exodus 21:12 reads, He who kills a man shall be put to death.
3. Speaking a curse over your parents
Yes, you got me right. Exodus 21:17 says, "whoever curses his mother or father
shall be put to death."
4. Practicing sorcery and magic.
The bible comes out clear and precise that whoever practices magic, fortune
telling or sorcery shall be put to death. Leviticus 20:26-27 "Men and women
among you who act as mediums or who consult the spirits of the dead must be put
to death by stoning. They are guilty of capital offense."
5. Issues patterning incest and homosexuality
Leviticus 20: 11-13 outlines that any person who has sexual relationships with
his mother, sister, and relatives or with another man shall be put to death.
5. Worshiping idol gods
Exodus 22:20 says "whoever sacrifices to another god must be destroyed."
6. Adultery and fornication.
"Deuteronomy 22:22 if a man commits adultery with another man???s wife both
must be put to death." 8. Abuse of father and mother
Abuse of father and mother warrants one death penalty according to the bible.
Exodus 21:15 "whoever strikes his mother or father must be put to death."
Hosea 4:6 says "My people perish due to lack of knowledge and wisdom." Get some
knowledge.
(source: hivisasa.com)
_______________________________________________
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
