May 7
WALES:
60 years since last man hanged in Wales
On the night of Friday 15 November 1957, 24-year-old Vivian Teed broke into the
sub-post office in Fforestfach, Swansea.
He did not expect to be disturbed, but was almost immediately accosted by the
postmaster, 73-year-old William Williams.
After a struggle broke out, Teed attacked Mr Williams with a hammer he had
brought along to force an entry, before fleeing empty-handed.
Both men would lose their lives - Mr Williams from 27 blows at Teed's hand,
Teed 6 months later on 6 May 1958, as the last man to be hanged in Wales.
On the surface, the murder was an open and shut case, but it remains
controversial and arguably hastened the abolition of capital punishment in the
UK.
After the briefest of manhunts, the hammer - which had snapped with the
ferocity of the attack - was traced to a works toolbox belonging to Teed's
father.
Footprints in Mr Williams' blood were matched to Teed's shoes, and blood
splatters were found on his trousers and coat.
Teed had even confessed his crime to a stranger in a local cafe.
Yet what everyone who had met Teed said he was not in his right mind.
At his trial on 17 and 18 March 1958, his barrister, F Elwyn Jones, argued:
"The defence is not that this man did not kill the unfortunate postmaster. That
tragic fact is true.
"The defence is that when the accused did it he was suffering from abnormality
of the mind which impaired substantially his mental responsibility for what he
did."
1 of 9 children, Teed had 2 previous convictions for violence, had been thrown
out of the RAF, and had a history of psychopathic personality disorders.
The jury twice failed to reach a verdict, before eventually convicting Teed
after receiving additional direction from the judge, who duly passed sentence
of death.
An appeal the following month failed, and Home Secretary Rab Butler refused
clemency, despite a 16-page petition.
Mark Davies, head of criminal law at Goldstone Solicitors in Swansea, believes
it may well have been measures designed to make the death penalty harder to
implement which actually did for Teed.
"Teed was the 1st person in the UK to be convicted under the 1957 Homicide Act,
which narrowed capital murder to just 2 categories, 1 of which was 'in the
course or furtherance of theft'.
"His case fitted so neatly into this, that I don't believe the jury gave due
consideration to the Act's other new provision, the introduction of the notion
of diminished responsibility into English law.
"Teed's might not have been a miscarriage of justice in the same way as Timothy
Evans or Derek Bentley, but it fed into the growing unease over the morality of
hanging."
According to author Geoff Brookes, who wrote about the case in his book
"Swansea in the 1950s" and for his local history website, nowhere was that
unease felt more acutely than in Swansea.
"It was a town torn. On the one hand, a pillar of the community known
affectionately as Old Banky had been brutally killed, and on the other the man
who was to hang for it wasn't in his right mind.
"A petition of 1,000 signatures was gathered around Swansea, but there was to
be no clemency.
"On the morning of the execution, just a handful of people stood quietly
outside Swansea Prison, a stark shift in public opinion from the first hanging
there 100 years before, when baying crowds had rented space on top of carts to
get a better view."
In researching his book, Mr Brookes came across a previously unseen note in the
West Glamorgan Archives, from the chaplain of Swansea Prison, describing the
chillingly cold details of that morning.
"The day before the equipment had been thoroughly tested by the governor and
the engineer. Then on 6 May all staff had to be on duty by 06:45 BST.
"Breakfast to the condemned cell at 07:30, chaplain to attend at 08:00.
"The governor enters the condemned cell with the executioner at 08:58. The
execution takes place at 09:00, with the medical officer's inspection of Teed
at 09:02 and the burial at 12:05."
At the bottom of the order was a handwritten note addressed to the prison
chaplain from the governor.
"As soon as executioner enters, stand up and move away from table in case there
is a bit of a do," it said.
"When prisoner leaves the condemned cell for the execution chamber follow. If
he wants you to say a prayer do so - if he wants you to accompany him do so.
"If not keep clear of those engaged in this work won't you?"
Hanging for murder was finally suspended in 1965 and abolished in 1969, (1973
in Northern Ireland).
It remained on the statute books for some offences until 1998, but in 2004 the
UK acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights,
which prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances.
(source: BBC News)
INDIA:
Kathua and After: Why the Death Penalty for Child Rape Will Not Deter
Offenders----In India, the efficacy of deterrence in reducing crime is deeply
doubtful, considering that the certainty of punishment itself is very low for a
variety of socio-economic and procedural reasons.
Responding to public outrage over the horrific rape and murder of an
eight-year-old girl in Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government
cleared the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 2018, which was promulgated by
the president on the April 21. The ordinance has, controversially, introduced
the death penalty for rape of a girl below 12 years of age, while also
increasing the mandatory minimum sentences for rape. It is expected that once
parliament is in session, the ordinance will become a law.
Many have celebrated this short-term "aggressive" response, and in fact, the
chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women, Swati Maliwal, even went on an
indefinite hunger strike to demand the introduction of such a drastic
punishment to "ensure safety" of the girl child. Unfortunately, it is far from
clear whether the ordinance will achieve this goal. In fact, the ordinance is
deeply troubling on many levels.
There is no doubt that child sexual abuse is a serious problem in India, and
is, in fact, on the rise. Figures available with the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB) reveal that reported incidents of child rape have witnessed a
sharp spike of 82% from 2015 to 2016. The ordinance seems to place emphasis on
the deterrent effect of introducing capital punishment in helping to reduce
incidents of child rape, and in ensuring speedy justice for the victims.
However, it is likely to have the opposite effect.
Indian law already provides for the death penalty as the maximum punishment in
a case of murder, and for repeat rape offenders. Deterrent theories of
sentencing are predicated on the rationality of offenders, i.e. they presume
that the fear of possible death will deter a would-be offender from committing
a serious crime. Assuming this is correct, the result of introducing the death
penalty for child rape would be that the law now provides an incentive for the
perpetrators to rape and then murder their victim - after all, it eliminates an
incriminating and often solitary witness to the crime at no additional cost.
Moreover, in India, the efficacy of deterrence in reducing crime is deeply
doubtful, considering that the certainty of punishment itself is very low for a
variety of reasons. First, due to social stigma, deep-seated patriarchy and a
long drawn and often humiliating investigation and trial process, there is
under-reporting of incidents of rape and sexual assault.
The victim (often at the behest of her family) is simply unwilling to report
such crimes and live through the public ordeal and possible reprisal that
follows. This is particularly so, because 94.6% of rapes (as per the 2016 NCRB
'Crime in India' data) are cases of acquaintance rape, i.e. where offender is
known to the victim, either as a family member, or neighbour, co-worker etc. It
is important to remember that these are only the percentages of the total
38,947 reported cases, and probably underestimate the prevalence of
acquaintance rape.
The introduction of death penalty for child rape will, in all likelihood,
increase the hesitation of the victim to prosecute such cases, since the fear
of the dire and irreversible consequence on the perpetrator may increase the
pressure on the victim from her family to maintain her silence, or to turn
hostile during trial.
Second, the process of investigation and trial for rape cases is also
problematic in India, apart from being unduly delayed (the pendency rate for
all child rape cases in courts was 89.6% in 2016). The investigation begins
with the humiliation and insensitive questions often faced by the victim while
getting a case registered in the police station, by officers with no training
in dealing with victims. Even during trial, there is inadequate counseling, a
lack of proper legal and psychological support, and a practice of both overt
and covert victim blaming. All these factors contribute to victims turning
hostile or refusing to prosecute further during the course of the trial,
leading to low conviction rates, diluting any possible deterrence, which is
relied upon by death penalty advocates so strongly.
Interestingly, even in the US, where the death penalty is constitutional, the
Supreme Court in Kennedy vs Louisiana (2008) struck down a law that authorised
death penalty for child rape for violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against "cruel and unusual punishment", since, among other things, it eroded
the distinction between child rape (where a victim did not die or death was not
intended) and the severity and irrevocability of murder.
A false dichotomy
The other rationale, which is cited by those who support the death penalty,
relies on the retributive theory of sentencing, where the punishment satisfies
society's cry for justice. However, such a theory does not give adequate
importance to the role of the state in pursuing such vengeance. The state
itself risks becoming a hostage to public opinion in such a scenario, and
ignores the importance free societies have given to the dignity and life of
every individual.
After all, a retributive theory can very easily lead to a slippery slope where
death penalty increasingly becomes the norm for a greater array of crimes and
eventually threatens the core of a "rights culture" that is present in society.
Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion in Kennedy vs Louisiana, rejected the
retributive theory to justify death penalty, observing that "It is the last of
this retribution that most often can contradict the laws' own ends.... When the
law punishes by death, it risks its own descent into brutality transgressing
the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint".
Additionally, it is important to remember that, often, a false dichotomy is
created with the death penalty, on one hand, and acquittal on the other.
Instead, the debate is at the margin, namely, whether death penalty is
necessary over and above life imprisonment.
On its face, the ordinance seeks to provide for speedy dispensation of justice,
by requiring that investigation in child rape cases be completed within two
months (from the earlier three months) and appeals in rape cases be disposed of
within six months. However, such quick fix solutions that merely set out
timelines without improving the underlying judicial and investigative
infrastructure remain mere paper remedies, and in fact, come at the cost of due
process. There is high pendency amongst the Indian judiciary, which does not
have the capacity to deal with the burgeoning caseload. By emphasising speed
over quality, and setting artificial timelines, there is a worry that the
quality of police investigation will suffer, and the rights of the accused will
be compromised.
The points I have raised above are distinct from the philosophical/empirical
concerns over continued retention of the death penalty in India in the first
place. The Supreme Court of India has recognised that that the confirmation of
the death sentence depends on the personal predilection of the appellate judges
constituting the bench and its application is subjective and arbitrary.
Simultaneously, empirical studies have shown the disparate impact of the death
penalty on marginalised and vulnerable groups. Given these well-recognised
problems with the application of the judicially evolved "rarest of rare"
standard that justifies the use of death penalty in India, it is important to
examine whether the 2018 ordinance will only exacerbate these problems.
Finally, it is important to talk about the procedural aspect of promulgating
this ordinance, which was passed as a way to quell the public outrage over the
spate of publicised incidents of rape, and as evidence of government "action".
There was no parliamentary deliberation or public discussion about the need for
such a punishment, or whether the introduction of capital punishment in the
statute books leads to a reduction of crime, or whether the death penalty will
serve a penal purpose that cannot already be served by punishments such as life
imprisonment.
This is unlike the debate generated in 2012, when the gruesome gangrape and
murder of a young woman in Delhi gave rise to similar demands for the
introduction of the death penalty. In response, the government set up a
committee of experts, headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to suggest
amendments to the criminal law. After extensive consultations and
deliberations, keeping in view the global movement towards abolition of the
death penalty and India's consequent human rights obligations, the committee
concluded that introducing the death penalty in cases of rape would be a
regressive step in the field of sentencing. Instead, it recommended changes in
the definition of rape and sexual assault, enhanced sentences, guidelines for
medical examination of sexual assault survivors, and police reforms. Based on
these suggestions, the government introduced various other amendments to the
criminal laws of the land and did not bring in the death penalty.
None of this is to discount the seriousness of rape as a crime. What needs to
be done, however, is not a short-term, headline-grabbing fix of amending the
law, but rather, to engage in finding a long-term solution that reforms the
investigative and judicial process and changes cultural and social norms that
often justify rape culture. Only then will we have truly saved our children.
(source: Vrinda Bhandari is a Delhi-based lawyer; thewire.in)
*******************
2 Nirbhaya killers seek mercy, SC reserves verdict
2 of the 4 Nirbhaya killers, who are facing death sentence in the December 2012
gangrape incident, pleaded for mercy and urged the Supreme Court to commute
their capital punishment into one of life imprisonment.
Another accused in the case, Ram Singh, died in Tihar Jail and a convicted
juvenile was released from the reformation home after serving a 3-year term as
per the Juvenile Justice Act.
Last year in May, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Delhi High
Court to award the death penalty to the 4 accused in the brutal gangrape and
murder of a 23-year-old medical student in New Delhi. The counsel for the
remaining 3 convicts also sought re-examination of the judgment.
The bench, which also comprised justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, summed
up the submissions advanced by the defence counsel and said, "death penalty is
in the statute book".
The paramedical student was gangraped on the intervening night of 16-17
December 2012, inside a moving bus in South Delhi by a gang of 6 persons and
severely assaulted before being thrown out on the road naked. The counsel
appearing for Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD)
objected to the arguments of Sharma's counsel and said: "Not even a single
point raised by the petitioner has not been dealt with by the court".
The case had provoked public anger and widespread protests as the victim
eventually succumbed to her injuries. Singh referred to recent murder case of a
minor school boy and said the Haryana police had framed the bus driver in it
and he only survived due to the scientific probe conducted by the CBI.
Advocate A P Singh, counsel for Vinay and Pawan, argued that they were "not
habitual offenders and have no criminal records, so the court must allow them
to be reformed".
He also said that 2 of the convicts were not juveniles and the trial court
confirmed this. The 4th convict Akshay has not filed a review petition yet.
Challenging the Supreme Court's verdict, Mukesh had a year ago filed a review
petition alleging that the court had not properly examined crucial evidence in
the case.
The Supreme Court had on May 5 previous year awarded death sentence to 4
convicts in the case saying that the brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of
the crime shook the conscience of humanity and they deserved the extreme
punishment.
(source: newburghgazette.com)
BOTSWANA:
Masisi comes face to face with 1st clemency appeal
Death row inmate Uyapo Poloko's lawyers are currently putting a last ditch
attempt to save their client as his fate now lies in the hands of President
Mokgweetsi Masisi who can either grant him clemency or send him to the gallows.
Poloko was sentenced to death 3 years ago after being found guilty of
strangling an Asian woman to death and attempting to murder the woman's
husband. Poloko's lawyer Tshekiso Thekiso of Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Legal
Practice confirmed that they have applied for clemency and are currently
seeking "certain information from the President". He could not be drawn into
discussing details of the clemency application for his client.
This will be Masisi's 1st death penalty assignment-an issue that attracts
domestic and international attention. According to the Constitution of
Botswana, upon receiving application for clemency, the President is compelled
to convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy. The
committee comprises of the Vice-President or a Minister appointed by the
President, the Attorney-General and a medical practitioner registered in
Botswana.
Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) Carter Morupisi did not confirm
whether an application from Poloko's lawyers reached President Masisi s office.
He rather referred this publication to Attorney General Abram Keetshabe, a
member of the Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy as when the Committee
is called to meet by the President. Keetshabe did not divulge any information
regarding Poloko's clemency or whether there has been a Committee held for
Poloko's clemency yet, rather reminding that "only the president can take a
decision to pardon a death row inmate."
In his last discussions on death penalty, local lawyer and a death penalty
abolitionist Martin Dingake maintained that the exercise of clemency is vague,
unjust and non-transparent-bound to prejudice the death-row inmates at the
expense of the so called exclusive presidential discretion. Dingake who
represented a high profile death-row inmate Patrick 'Raselepe' Gabaakanye in
2016 was not given response for his clemency application and communication
after his client was hanged.
Masisi's predecessor Ian Khama left office a month after allowing the hanging
of Joseph Tselayarona for the murder of his lover, Ngwanyanaotsile Keikanne and
her 3-year-old son, Miguel Keikanne back in 2010. Before handing the baton to
Masisi on April 1 this year, Khama had rejected pleas for clemency from
Tselayarona. Days before Tselayarona's execution Khama made remarks at one of
his farewell meetings in Palapye that he supports death penalty and would turn
a deaf ear or blind eye to those who speak for murderers at the expense of the
victims' justice.
Before leaving office, Khama left Masisi with several death-row inmates most of
which failed to convince the Court of Appeal to overrule their sentences.
Former Chief Justice Maruping Dibotelo last year December made an appointment
for Matshidiso Boikanyo and Moabi Mabiletsa with the hangman for killing cab
driver Vincent Mopipi by stabbing him 44 times in 2013. Also in December the
Lobatse High Court sentenced Tshiamo Kgalalelo and Mmika Mpe to death for the
murder of their white employer Reinette Vorster at Gantsi farms. Mooketsi
Kgosibodiba is also on death-row for the murder of Benjamin Makobela back in
2012 at Makobo village.
In the history of death penalty in Botswana, no president has ever granted a
death-row inmate clemency and Masisi is yet to continue the precedence set by
his predecessors or reverse history. Khama has seen 8 executions in his reign.
His predecessor Festus Mogae allowed the execution of 7 people. During his
term, Ketumile Masire saw 15 people going to the gallows while the founding
president and Ian's father Seretse Khama approved the execution of 17 death row
prisoners during his term.
(source: weekendpost.co.bw)
IRAN----execution
Prisoner Hanged in Babol Prison
A prisoner was executed at Babol Prison on murder charges.
According to Rokna news agency, on the morning of Saturday, May 5, a prisoner
was hanged at Babol Prison on murder charges.
The prisoner, identified as A. F., 27, committed murder over a financial
dispute in 2015.
According to the state-run news agency, Javan, quoting Younes Hosseini Alemi,
the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor of Mazandaran, "The defendant, A.F.,
son of Shidollah, who was sentenced to death on the charge of murdering J. A.,
was hanged at Babol Prison in the presence of the plaintiffs."
According to Iran Human Rights annual report on the death penalty, 240 of the
517 execution sentences in 2017 were implemented due to murder charges. There
is a lack of a classification of murder by degree in Iran which results in
issuing a death sentence for any kind of murder regardless of intensity and
intent.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
BAHRAIN:
Request to reconsider capital punishment ruling presented
Minister of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments, Shaikh Khalid bin Ali Al
Khalifa, said an application to reconsider death sentences in a bombing case
would be presented to the Court of Cassation.
"Following the review of the proposal made by the Special Investigations Unit
(SIU), as referred by the Attorney General, to reconsider death sentences in
the murder of a police officer and attempted murder of other officers in a
terrorist bombing, a decision was made to apply to the President of the Court
of Cassation to reconsider the death sentences. The decision is subject to the
privileges granted under the Court of Cassation Law that allow the Minister of
Justice to request a reconsideration of sentences under certain circumstances,"
the minister said.
Shaikh Khalid pointed out that "such an application is made under the authority
vested in the Minister of Justice to ensure that justice is served after
exhausting all legal avenues to the maximum extent possible in order to uncover
the truth, subject to Court of Cassation Law."
"The Court of Cassation has absolute discretion, based on the investigations
carried out by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and the new documents filed
in respect of evidence in the case against the convicts," he said.
The minister underscored Bahrain's deep commitment to safeguarding the legal
rights guaranteed by its legislature to ensure that justice is served to the
fullest extent of the law.
The Ministry of Interior Ombudsman had reviewed the case and notified the SIU
of their findings. The SIU had in turn investigated the case and proposed a
reconsideration of the sentences against the 2 convicts in light of uncovering
new documents which were not presented to the Court that issued the sentences.
(source: Bahrain News Agency)
_______________________________________________
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
