April 5
VIETNAM:
6 activists could face death penalty in Vietnam
A court in Hanoi on Thursday opened the trial of 6 activists accused of
attempting to overthrow the government as communist authorities stepped up
their crackdown on dissent.
Prominent human rights lawyer Nguyen Van Dai and five others are accused of
affiliating with a pro-democracy group called the Brotherhood for Democracy,
which prosecutors say works with foreign and domestic organizations to oppose
the state, change the political system and eventually overthrow the government.
The 6 face the death penalty if convicted.
"The defendants have taken advantage of the fight for 'democracy, human rights,
civil society' to conceal the ... purpose of 'the Brotherhood for Democracy,'
the official Vietnam News Agency quoted the indictment as saying.
Prosecutors determined that Dai was the mastermind behind the group, directly
building its platform, recruiting new members and seeking finance from foreign
organisations and individuals, which totalled more than $80,000, it said.
International human rights groups have called for their release.
"Vietnam is one of Southeast Asia's most prolific jailers of peaceful activists
-- a shameful title no one should aspire to," James Gomez, Amnesty
International's director of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, said in statement.
He said that 97 prisoners of conscience "that we are aware of in the country
are all brave women and men who have been robbed of their freedom for nothing
but promoting human rights."
Human Rights Watch put the number of people jailed for violating national
security laws at 119.
Hanoi says there are no political prisoners in Vietnam and only law breakers
are put behind bars.
Speaking to reporters in Hanoi last week, US Ambassador Danial Kritenbrink said
human rights remains a key priority for the United States in its relations with
Vietnam.
"Although there has been some progress in recent years, the trend over the past
24 months of increased arrests, convictions and harsh sentences of activists is
deeply troubling," he said.
Dai, a co-founder of the group, and another member were arrested in December
2015, initially accused of spreading anti-government propaganda while 4 other
members were detained last July.
Dai and 4 others had previously been jailed for violating national security
laws.
In 2007, Dai was sentenced to 5 years in prison for spreading propaganda
against the government but got his jail term reduced to 4 years on appeals. His
lawyer's license was revoked.
Foreign press and diplomats are barred from the trial, which is expected to
last 2 days.
(source: Bangkok Post)
BANGLADESH:
Bangladesh seeks death penalty for methamphetamine traffickers
Bangladesh wants to punish methamphetamine traffickers with the death penalty,
officials said Thursday, as authorities confront the growing popularity of the
dangerous and addictive drug. The proposal to crackdown on the spread of
methamphetamine, known locally as "yaba", comes after Bangladesh seized more
than 40 million pills of the narcotic in 2017 -- double the previous year.
Authorities want to elevate yaba to a Class A banned substance, meaning
traffickers would face the death penalty instead of life behind bars.
"We'll raise the punishment for yaba trafficking. In the new law the maximum
punishment will be (the) death sentence," Jamaluddin Ahmed, the head of
Bangladesh's narcotics control department, told AFP.
Bangladesh law enforcement say the drugs are smuggled across the porous border
from Myanmar.
Ahmed said traffickers had been more active since August, when Rohingya
refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar began pouring into Bangladesh.
Gangs had been using the Rohingya as mules and hiding drugs in fishing boats
used to ferry the persecuted Muslims to safety.
"Recently there has been such a huge inflow of yaba from Myanmar that it has
become increasingly difficult for us to control it. As a result, its use has
also increased," Ahmed said.
Raids of fishing boats have uncovered huge hauls of the drug.
Authorities said last week that 9 million yaba tablets were seized in less than
3 months as the refugee influx reached its peak. Nearly 2 million pills were
discovered in a single haul.
Towfique Uddin Ahmed, a director at the narcotics control department, said
authorities estimate $600 million worth of yaba could be sold on Bangladesh's
streets this year.
One senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "drastic action"
like the violent crackdown on drug users and dealers in the Philippines could
be needed to stamp out the drug.
"Some (traffickers) should be put in the crosshairs. We have come to that
point," he said.
(source: Daily Mail)
***********************
3 get death penalty for 2011 rape, murder of teenaged girl in Chittagong
A Chittagong court has sentenced t3 men to death for raping and murdering a
teen 7 years ago.
The perpetrators also 'cremated' the body of their victim into ashes in a bid
to destroy evidence.
The Chittagong Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal No 3's acting
judge Begum Roksana Parvin delivered the verdict on Wednesday.
The convicts are Sujan Kumar Das, Samir Dey and Jadu Ghose.
Sujan had been arrested and produced in the Tribunal when it delivered the
verdict.
The 2 others are absconding.
Lawyer Nazrul Islam Sentu, who stood for the State in the hearing, told
bdnews2.com the court handed the accused the capital punishment as the charges
were proved.
They 'cremated' the body of the 18-year-old victim at the South Kattoli
crematorium, an area under Paharhtali Police Station's jurisdiction, he said.
The charred body was found in 2011, he added.
(source: bdnews24.com)
PHILIPPINES:
Too early to rejoice over death sentence for Demafelis killers - OFW
congressman
Justice for Filipina worker Joanna Demafelis is not yet served until the murder
suspects' death sentence is carried out, ACTS-OFW Representative Aniceto Bertiz
said on Wednesday, April 4.
In a press briefing, Bertiz pointed out that the suspects in Demafelis' murder
are nationals of different countries and not from Kuwait, which handed the
death sentence.
He added that the Kuwaiti government does not hold custody of the suspects and
"cannot carry out the penalty."
The husband is Lebanese and is in Lebanon, while the wife is Syrian and is in
Syria. Both Lebanon and Syria are separate states from Kuwait.
The couple were arrested in February following an Interpol manhunt. Syrian
authorities handed the husband, Nader Essam Assaf, over to Lebanese
authorities, while his Syrian wife remained in custody in Damascus.
However, the sentencing can still be appealed if the couple returns to Kuwait,
a source told Agence France-Presse.
Don't lift deployment ban yet
Demafelis' murder prompted the Philippine government to impose a total ban on
the deployment of Filipino workers to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government has since
initiated talks with the Philippines to improve the working conditions of OFWs.
Bertiz also said the deployment ban should not be lifted, given that the
sentence has not been carried out.
President Rodrigo Duterte earlier said that the deployment ban would only be
lifted if the memorandum of understanding with the Kuwaiti government had been
signed, or if "justice has been served."
On Monday, April 3, Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III said he was "not yet
ready" to recommend the lifting of the ban to the President.
But Bello also confirmed that a consensus had been reached on the memorandum,
and the labor department was only waiting for Duterte's approval.
The provisions of the memorandum include prohibiting employers from
confiscating travel documents and communication gadgets, binding effect on
contracts, and payment of a minimum month net pay of $400 through banks.
The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration recorded a total of 196 deaths of
Filipino workers in the Gulf country since 2016. This figure is on top of 6,000
cases of abuse, sexual harassment, and rape filed with the Philippine embassy
in 2017.
There are about 252,000 overseas Filipino workers in Kuwait, mostly doing
household service.
(asource: rappler.com)
INDIA:
Can Rapists Be Sent to the Gallows? Breaking Down IPC Section 376E
A Mumbai court's award of death sentence to 3 rapists in the Shakti Mills
gangrape case has sparked a legal debate around the constitutionality of
Section 376E. The section, added after the Nirbhaya case of 2012, mandates
death sentence as punishment for repeat offenders of rape.
However, the first 3 accused to be convicted under this section have challenged
it in the Bombay High Court. Their case, which has decided legal world, has
three aspects: What counts as 'rarest of rare'? What counts as a 'repeat
offense' and a larger question India remains divided on: should the death
penalty exist at all?
What is the Shakti Mills Case?
On 22 August 2013, a 22-year-old photojournalist was gangraped in the abandoned
Shakti Mills compound. While her case was on trial, another 18-year-old woman
came forward, claiming that she was gangraped by the same men a month prior to
the 2nd rape.
The sessions court heard the 2 cases together, and convicted and sentenced the
accused to life imprisonment for raping the telephone operator.
Soon after, the court convicted the 3 men for raping the photojournalist as
well, but between the conviction and the sentencing - a 2 week period - the
prosecution was allowed to file an additional charge under Section 376E (a
provision on rape added to the IPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013)
against the accused. The court allowed this addition, despite the defence's
protest, and eventually handed out the death penalty against the 3 'repeat
offenders' on 4 April 2014.
Vijay Jadhav (19), Kasim Bengali (21), and Salim Ansari (28) are the 1st to be
sentenced to death for rape not involving the death of the victim. A 4th
convict in the Shakti Mills case, Siraj Khan, has been sentenced to life in
jail and a minor accused is being tried separately.
The 3 have since filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court, challenging the
constitutional validity of Section 376E itself: the death penalty is awarded
only in the 'rarest of rare' cases, when the victim dies or is reduced to a
vegetative state because of the act of rape.
They are alleging that handing the death penalty to them is against their Right
to Life, since the victim did not die. Besides, the accused are also arguing
that there is no 'previous conviction', as required for the 'enhanced
punishment' under the new law. They are essentially asking that Section 376E be
read to affect offences committed after a rape conviction and the serving of
the sentence, and not when there are 2 convictions for rapes tried
simultaneously.
Those Who Support the Death Sentence
Those who are for this judgement and regard the sessions court's decision as
'landmark' argue that this will prevent potential rapists from repeating their
crimes after they have been let out of jail. Since the 3 accused - Jadhav,
Bengali, Ansari - had already been sentenced to life for raping the telephone
operator, once convicted for raping the photojournalist, Section 376E applies
and automatically increases the quantum of punishment to death.
Those who support the sentence argue that the accused are beyond the scope of
reformation within the criminal justice system and should be made an example of
to deter any similar instances in the future.
Women's Rights Activist Pratibha Naitthani applauded the "strong verdict" when
it was handed to the accused, saying that "it would prevent men from getting
away easily with rape."
National Women's Commission member Nirmala Samant Prabhavalkar also said, in
April 2014, that "It [was] a sentence the convicts deserved, is permitted by
law and one which will act as a deterrent for future like-minded offenders.
Capital punishment was brought in to deter habitual offenders for such heinous
crimes."
Are they 'Repeat Offenders'?
The investigators and the prosecution in the Shakti Mills case argued that
since it was discovered that the accused had previously assaulted and/or raped
at least 10 other women in the same compound, they fit into the the category of
'serial offenders'.
It was also discovered that the 3 convicts, along with their friends, had a set
modus operandi for such assaults on women wherein they would spot a "shikar"
(prey), pretend to be cops with couples and gangrape women, often threatening
them with physical violence and by clicking pictures of the victims after the
act.
Emboldened by getting away with their heinous acts, the accused continued their
criminal proclivities, which is why they are rightfully 'repeat offenders',
argues prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. The repetition of the crime by the accused can
be interpreted as defying the law itself, and had they not been caught, were
likely to do it again.
Principal Sessions judge Shalini Phansalkar Joshi observed that the objective
of the law was to send out a "strong signal" to society that such offences must
not recur. Opining on the argument that since the convicts had not previously
been convicted of raping the telephone operator before the photojournalist
(but, convicted in both simultaneously), the new law did not apply, she said:
The Legislature wants to ensure that such tendency is crushed and therefore
this court accepts the prosecution's case. Previous conviction may be a few
minutes old, or a day or a few years. Had the intention of the Legislature been
to specify the time (days, a year or decade), it would have said so. The
Legislature has wisely used the words 'previous conviction'. The general
definition of 'repeat offender' provided in the dictionary cannot hold for
376E. If the intent of the Legislature was that repeat offence meant an offence
committed 2, 3 [or] 4 times, the Legislature would have said so.
Is it a 'Rarest of Rare' Case?
As far as 'rarest of rare' goes, Sessions Court Judge Shalini Joshi, while
announcing the sentence, had highlighted that "both natural and unnatural
offences were inflicted on the woman. It reflects the level of depravity of the
accused. In no way can this crime not be considered brutal."
The photojournalist was raped 6 times by five men while tied and a broken
bottle held over her head to prevent her for screaming, forced to watch
pornography and then clean up the crime scene after they were done.
"The offences reveal the extent of the depravity of the accused. This court in
all its authority has to listen to the cries of the victim and the society at
large. A proper signal has to be sent out to society. Other accused that have
such tendencies would be deterred," the judge said.
Taking on the 'but the victim didn't die' argument, prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam
argued that it can not be the only factor to determine whether a case is
gruesome. "The survivor is still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Chances for reformation cannot be given to demons in human form," said Nikam.
Former judicial magistrate, Umeshchandra Yadav-Patil, said, while speaking to
The New York Times, that the new amendment actually created the legal grounds
for the prosecution to prove whether the Mumbai gangrape qualifies as one of
the "rarest of rare" cases. The question, then, isn't whether the 2 gangrapes
are exceptionally heinous crimes or not, but whether the act of repeating
gangrapes can be proved as an exceptionally heinous crime.
Those Who Don't Support the Death Sentence
Those who are against the judgment argue that only after a rapist is convicted
in one offence, spend 7-10 years in jail (for rape) or 20 years (for gangrape)
and then comes out and rapes again, can he be called a "repeat offender" under
Section 376E and get the death penalty.
Therefore, the new section was wrongly applied since both the crimes were
committed in the same year, within a month of each other. Those against the
judgement feel that the convicts should have been given life sentence for both
gangrapes under Section 376D instead.
Here, the larger moral debate about the death penalty also comes into play with
people questioning whether sending these men to the gallows under Section 376E
does anything to change the larger culture of rape in the country, and whether
or not they should be given a chance at reformation and rehabilitation.
Are They 'Repeat Offenders'?
When the appeal of the convicts against the death sentence reached the High
Court, Justices NH Patol and Abhay Thipsay asked, "What is the purpose of
having both the trials [of the 2 gangrapes] together," stating that it would
make for a stronger case for Section 376E to be applied if the 1st conviction
and sentence came previous to the 2nd one.
However, what is to be noted here is that under Section 219 and Section 223 of
the Criminal Procedure Court, accused can be tried during the course of one
trial if the same offence is committed within a space of 12 months by the same
accused.
When the sessions court sentenced convicts, several high profile lawyers spoke
out against the verdict in the press. Prominently, veteran women's lawyer
Flavia Agnes, said speaking to The Times of India, that the death penalty would
not serve as a deterrent in this case.
Criminal law experts have read the new amendment and concluded that
simultaneous trials are not contemplated within the scope of Section 376E, and
do not meet the requirement of a fair procedure under Article 21 of the
Constitution, ie Right to Life. They insist that the 1st sentence ought to be
served out before the second conviction, subsequent to which the Section 376E
can be applicable.
Besides, if the purpose of the new law is to serve as a deterrent for 'serial
offenders' or 'repeat offenders', then this judgement will do little to change
the rates of rapes in India, since the sexual crime is not localised; it's a
mindset. Objectively, there is no such thing as finding the rapists, killing
them and waking up to find rapes have stopped happening.
Lakshmi Lingam, who works at the Tata Institute of Social Scienes, said to The
Hindu that a death penalty will do little to bring change, unless attitudes
towards women and sexuality change.
Bringing out the argument that if the punishment for rape was to become the
same as murder, Lingam argued that then "rapes will take more brutal forms and
murders will increase. Rapists will try to kill the woman to snuff out her
voice, thereby snuffing out evidence."
Is it a 'Rarest of Rare Case'?
The defence has also argued that since the photojournalist did not die, neither
was she "robbed" or "hurt" with visible physical injuries, the case cannot be
counted as a 'rarest of rare' case, a term usually saved for gruesome physical
violence leading to the death of the victim, such as the Nirbhaya case.
Flavia Agnes agreed on this count too: "Rape is not murder and a woman who is
raped is not a zinda laash [living corpse]. Even committed by the accused more
than once, rape cannot be termed as "rarest of rare" offence. Death penalty is
not a sign of a civilised society."
However, the Sessions Court Judge Phansalkar-Joshi noted that the convicts did
not do anyone a favour by 'not robbing or hurting her externally' or even
letting her live, emphasising that the gangrape was premeditated and not a
spontaneous act of lust.
"The gangrape accused were not only enjoying the act of sexual assault, but
also the survivor's helplessness. It was executed in the most gruesome manner
with no mercy or show of human dignity to the survivor." said Phansalkar-Joshi.
The High Court is currently hearing the convicts' pleas and the Union
Government has been asked to explain before the bench the exact reading of
Section 376E they had in mind when they framed it.
Which side the dice turns is a matter of time and much debate, however, it can
be said with certitude that post the Nirbhaya case and now the Shakti Mills
case, death penalty has become central to the conversation around reducing
rampant sexual crimes against women in India.
(source: thequint.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
