July 20
GLOBAL:
Death penalty executions at a 25 year high, Amnesty reports
The number of people executed around the world has reached a sobering new
record. New figures released by Amnesty International show a 50 % rise in
executions in 2015.
More than 1634 people were condemned to death in 25 countries worldwide, that's
573 more than in 2014. The human rights watchdog said it marked an alarming
development, and the real figures could be even higher, as the numbers for
China are unknown.
"The dramatic rise in executions that we recorded in 2015 was down to huge
increases, primarily huge increases, in just 3 countries - Iran, Pakistan and
Saudi Arabia. Together these 3 countries accounted for almost 90 % of all the
executions that we recorded in 2015, again, excluding China," explained Audrey
Gaughran, Director for Global Issues and Research, from Amnesty International.
The report notes that China regards death penalty figures as a state secret.
When asked about the report a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry claimed that
Amnesty released 'unfair' statements about the country.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan were responsible for 89% of the executions in
2015. The Saudi kingdom was responsible for more than 158 executions and Iran
for 977, which represents an increase of 76% and 31% respectively from 2014. In
Pakistan, there were 326 recorded deaths, the most executions in the country's
history.
According to Amnesty's report, Iran and Pakistan executed minors at the time of
their deaths. In the Middle East and Africa, the majority of the people are
condemned because of terrorist actions.
The organisation has been campaigning to end the death penalty since 1977 when
only 16 countries had abolished it. They noted that 102 countries abolished the
act entirely by the end of 2015, making a total of 140 abolitionist countries
around the world.
(source: euronews.com)
*************
A map of countries that still have the death penalty---see:
http://www.west-info.eu/a-map-of-countries-that-still-have-the-death-penalty/
(source: west-info.eu)
PAKISTAN:
PHC stays executions of 3 militants
Peshawar High Court (PHC) stayed the execution of three militants on Tuesday by
suspending the verdict of a military court for their involvement in alleged
attacks on security forces and other terror related activities. A divisional
bench of the PHC comprising of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Waqar Seth also
issued notice to the federal government to file a reply till next hearing.
The bench stayed the execution on judicial review appeals filed by 3 convicts
Tabib, Muhammad Ayaz and Azizur Rahman through their counsels Ghulam Mohiuddin
Malik and Arif Jan. The counsels informed the court that the petitioners were
awarded death penalty by military courts and their sentences were approved by
the Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif on July 14, 2015.
They argued the petitioners had not been given the chance to defend themselves,
terming the trial a violation of the right to a fair trial. Malik said that
Tabib went missing from Abbottabad on October 30, 2014 and his whereabouts were
unknown since then. Similarly, they said that Muhammad Ayaz, a resident of
Barikot Swat, was arrested from a security checkpoint in 2009 and was
transferred to several different places from time to time. Applicants' counsels
argued that even family members were not allowed to meet him.
The counsels contended that Azizur Rahman who was a resident of Matta area of
Swat was arrested by security forces in 2010 and was kept at different
internment centres since then. They said that their family members of the
convicts came to know through media that they had been awarded the death
sentence and that the army chief had approved their execution.
The counsel contended that none of them had been given a fair trial nor it was
known under what crimes they had committed to merit the death sentence.
The bench stayed their executions and sought replies from the federal
government. Besides, those whose death sentences were approved by the army
chief include Muhammad Qayyum Bacha who was given the death penalty for
carrying out an attack on on law enforcement agencies. Muhammad Asif, who was a
member of the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi got the death sentence on charges of
target killing.
Other militants who were convicted are Barkat Ali, Hussan Dar, Ishaq, and
Behram Sher who were active members of the banned TTP and were sentenced to
death for carrying out attacks on security forces.
(source: The Daily Times)
BANGLADESH:
2 get death for killing doctor
Special Tribunal Judge Nitai Chandra Saha yesterday handed down death penalty
to 2 men for killing Dr Shafiqul Islam, owner of Jess Clinic in Jessore town,
on July 29, 2009, said Prosecutor SM Badruzzaman Palash, who conducted the case
on behalf of the government. 2 others were acquitted.
The convicted are Ashiqur Rahman Bablu, 40, son of Rajab Ali, and Saiful Islam
Jakir, 36, son of Miratul Haque, both of Ghope Nawapara in the town.
The acquitted are Rabbu alias Mursalin of New Town, and M Raihan of Ghope
Nawapara.
Dr Shafiqul Islam, the then treasurer of the Jessore district unit of BMA and
also owner of Jess Clinic, was killed by the criminals inside his clinic at
around 10:00pm on July 29, 2009.
Abdus Salam Dhabak, father of the deceased, filed a case with Jessore Kotwali
Police Station in this connection on July 30, 2009.
(source: The Daily Star)
INDIA:
Behind bars
Prison administration is integral to the justice delivery system which, many
feel, calls for urgent reflection. The system has been almost unchanged since
its inception though a change in nomenclature has been effected over time. Our
prisons are no longer called 'jails'; they have been christened as correctional
homes in keeping with the changed ethos.
Even though the prison infrastructure has improved considerably over the years,
we still have a long way to go as far as treatment of the inmates 'inside these
correctional homes are concerned. The findings of a recent study titled the
'Death Penalty Research Project' are distressing. In this 1st-ever
comprehensive study of the socio-economic profile of prisoners sentenced to
death, researchers at Delhi's National Law University (NLU) have found that by
and large they belong to the economically vulnerable sections, backward
communities and religious minority groups. This is important because a
prisoner's economic status and level of education directly affects his ability
to effectively participate in the criminal justice system to secure a fair
trial.
As it appears from the report, such prisoners have found it difficult to
negotiate the burdens imposed by our criminal justice system. As a result, the
death penalty often disproportionately affects those who have the least
capabilities to negotiate our criminal justice system. The research team
identified 385 prisoners and got access to 373 of them. Referring to the right
to be present at one's own trial, the study found that only 1 out of the 4
interviewed had attended all the hearings. Some prisoners would merely be taken
to the court premises by the police and then confined to a court lock-up
without ever being produced in the courtroom. Of 189 prisoners, 169 did not
have a lawyer. Again, although the person arrested has to be informed about the
reason for the arrest, 136 prisoners allegedly said that they were taken away
to 'sign papers' and were never allowed to go home again. Besides, 166
prisoners were not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest
... which is mandatory. Weeks and months passed before they were produced in
court; sometimes the arrest was recorded only at that point of time.
The interim period was often spent in alleged torture. The researchers
interviewed a majority of the 385 prisoners on death row, of whom one said he
would be happy to be killed rather than being tortured every day. Out of 92
prisoners who had confessed in police custody, 72 had made statements allegedly
under torture. Death-row prisoners were often kept locked while the trial
proceeded, and at least 2 were not in a position to follow the proceedings of
the trial.
The report states that even when prisoners were present in court, "the very
architecture of several trial courts often prevents any real chance of the
accused participating in their own trial." They were often confined at the rear
of the courtroom while the interaction between the judge and the lawyers took
place in the front. A person charged with a crime has the right to an
interpreter if he does not understand the language used in court, and to
translated documents. But this requirement is seldom complied with. Over 1/2
the prisoners interviewed said they did not understand the proceedings at all,
either because of the obstructive court architecture or the language used
(often English). Part of an accused's right to a fair hearing is the right to
challenge evidence produced against them. In India, trial courts can question
the accused directly at any stage, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the
persons must be questioned separately about every material circumstance to be
used against them, and in a form they can understand.
The study found that these provisions were routinely dishonoured. Over 60 % of
the prisoners interviewed said they were only asked to give "yes/no" responses
during their trials, with no meaningful opportunity to explain themselves. 7
out of 10 prisoners said their lawyers did not discuss case details with them.
Almost 77 % never met their lawyers outside the court, and the interaction
inside the court was perfunctory. Many of the prisoners preferred to engage
private lawyers despite their economic vulnerability because of the putative
incompetence of the underpaid legal aid lawyers. The higher the courts, lesser
the information the prisoners have about their cases. As often as not, they
ascertain the progress of the trial through the prison authorities or media
reports though it is not just death-row prisoners who face such violations. The
constitutionality of the death sentence was last upheld in May 1980 by the
Supreme Court. It had ruled that the death penalty did not infringe the right
to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. However, it should be
awarded only in the 'rarest of the rare' cases. Surprisingly, most prisoners
sentenced to death in India are not eventually executed. Less than 5 % of those
sentenced by trial courts have actually been executed. In most of the cases,
their death sentences were commuted by the higher courts following appeals.
The NLU report makes it clear that its findings do not necessarily suggest that
the state authorities intentionally discriminate against poor or less educated
prisoners. But the report does allege that the system is so biased that there
is a degree of indirect discrimination at work which worsens the chances of
fair trial for prisoners from disadvantaged backgrounds. Yet issues pertaining
to fair trial rights and treatment of prisoners on death row by the criminal
justice system are almost never discussed with due seriousness. Indirect
discrimination happens when a seemingly impartial and innocuous practice
affects particular groups adversely, even if it is not deliberately directed at
the groups. Given the irreversible nature of the death penalty, it is
particularly important that fair trial rights are scrupulously safeguarded.
Every death sentence imposed following an unfair trial violates the right to
life. It has been suggested by some observers that the only way to end this
injustice is to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of the death penalty
as a 1st step towards abolition of the same. The Law Commission of India, in a
report last year, recommended the abolition of the death penalty in phases,
beginning with ending it for all offences except those related to terrorism.
The criminal justice system allegedly follows several practices which hurt the
poor and the marginalised much more than others. What needs to be investigated
is whether such practices are the result of entrenched socio-economic
inequalities or whether indirect discrimination has been institutionalised. In
its report last year on the death penalty, the Law Commission stated: "The
vagaries of the system also operate disproportionately against the socially and
economically marginalized who may lack the resources to effectively advocate
their rights within an adversarial criminal justice system."
For a vibrant liberal-democratic India, the Death Penalty India Report does
come as a rude shock. Principles of custodial care remain theoretical, although
it is obligatory for the police to take care of their well-being and health.
Hopefully, the findings of the report will make policy makers and prison
administrators sit up and take notice, indeed to make meaningful interventions
to ensure the rights of the undertrials and put in place a humane justice
delivery system.
(source: thestatesman.com)
GAZA:
Hamas sentences 3 'spies for Israel' to death----Military court in Gaza
sentences 3 local residents to death after they were convicted of spying for
Israel.
A military court in Gaza on Tuesday sentenced 3 local residents to death after
they were convicted of providing information to Israel's security services.
The Palestinian Interior Ministry, which is in charge of the security forces
and which is controlled by Hamas in Gaza, said that the Supreme Military Court
sentenced to death by strangling and shooting the 3 men, who according to the
statement handed over information that harmed the public interest and the
Palestinian national security.
The trial of the "spies" was held behind closed doors and without the presence
of the media.
Hamas regularly claims to have captured "Israeli spies", and many times it
tries them and sentences them to death.
In 1 such example, the group claimed to have exposed "the most dangerous
intelligence agent" who allegedly worked for the Israel Security Agency (Shin
Bet).
More recently, Hamas claimed it arrested an intelligence agent who had provided
information to Israel for 14 years and who allegedly assisted in providing
information which led to the elimination of terrorists and in the bombings of
houses in Gaza.
Under Palestinian law, collaboration with Israel is punishable by death. All
death sentences, however, require the approval of Palestinian Authority (PA)
chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who issued a moratorium on death sentences in 2005.
Hamas ignores the moratorium and carries out the executions anyway, as it no
longer recognizes the legitimacy of Abbas, whose four-year term expired in
2009.
Amnesty International has previously called on Hamas to stop the executions of
suspected collaborators, saying that the group "must immediately and totally
cease its use of the death penalty."
(source: Israel National News)
SAUDI ARABIA/UNITED KINGDOM:
Boris Johnson Must Raise Juvenile Death Sentences in Saudi Meeting
The new Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has been urged to use a meeting today
with the Saudi Foreign Minister to call for an end to juvenile executions in
Saudi Arabia.
According to a Foreign Office statement this morning, Mr Johnson is due to host
the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, later today, in one of a series of
first meetings with the UK's "international partners". The meeting will
reportedly take place alongside US Secretary of State John Kerry and the
Foreign Minister of the UAE.
The meeting takes place amid concerns over Saudi Arabia's practice of juvenile
executions - in particular, the cases of Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher, and
Dawood al-Marhoon. All 3 face beheading, despite having been juveniles when
they were arrested in 2012. The 3, who were arrested for allegedly attending
protests, were tortured into signing 'confessions' which were used to convict
them in secretive trials. The death sentences for all 3 juveniles were upheld
last autumn, and they could now be executed at any time.
Although the use of the death penalty against juveniles is prohibited under
international law, Saudi Arabia has executed at least 4 juveniles this year -
including Ali Al Ribh, who was arrested at 2012 protests and executed during a
mass execution of 47 people in January. The European Saudi Organization for
Human Rights has said that currently "there is an execution every 2 days" in
Saudi Arabia, and that there were now "alarm bells" for Ali, Dawood and
Abdullah, among others on the country's death row.
The Foreign Office said last month that it has raised the 3 juveniles' cases
with Saudi Arabia, and that "our expectation is that Ali al-Nimr and the 2
others will not be executed." However, the UK appears not to have requested
that their death sentences be commuted, and the 3 juveniles released.
Mr Johnson's meeting follows recent concerns that the UK could be risking
complicity with the kinds of abuses suffered by the juveniles. Last month, an
internal UK government report uncovered by human rights organization Reprieve
stated that Britain's College of Policing was teaching the Saudi Interior
Ministry high-tech forensic skills that could be "used to identify individuals
who later go on to be tortured." Earlier this month, a report by the Home
Affairs Select Committee highlighted the Foreign Office's refusal to provide
details of the College???s contracts in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, branding it
"totally unacceptable".
Today's meeting also comes after members of the European Parliament urged
Federica Mogherini - the EU's Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy - to ask the Saudi Foreign Minister to review all death sentences issued
to juveniles, and to commute the sentences handed to Ali, Dawood and Abdullah.
However, following a meeting between Ms Mogherini and Mr Jubeir yesterday, it
was not clear whether the cases were raised.
Commenting, Maya Foa, head of the death penalty team at Reprieve, said:
"Today's meeting takes place while at least 3 juveniles await execution in
Saudi Arabia - all having faced torture, forced 'confessions' and secret
trials. Many others in line for beheading were arrested for non-violent alleged
crimes, such as political protest. Now more than ever, the UK must make clear
that these abuses are unacceptable. The new Foreign Secretary must urgently
call on Saudi Arabia to release Ali, Abdullah, and Dawood - and to investigate
how many others on its death row may have been convicted as children."
(source: Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to
enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay----
reprieve.org)
TURKEY:
Turkish military penal code allows capital punishment for putschist soldiers
After the failed coup attempt of July 15 by a faction in the Turkish military
orchestrated by the fugitive imam Fethullah Gulen, the discussion about
reinstating the death penalty has become a major topic in Turkish politics.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested on Tuesday that he is ready to
reinstate the death penalty if the people demand it and Parliament approves the
necessary legislation. "In democracies, decisions are made based on what the
people say. I think our government will speak with the opposition and come to a
decision," Erdogan said to a large crowd chanting: "We want the death penalty,"
on Tuesday evening in Istanbul. "We hear your request. In a democracy, whatever
the people want, they will get." he said.
Speaking after the Cabinet meeting on Monday in Ankara, Prime Minister Binali
Yildirim said: "Turkey is a state of law, we engage in politics for our
people," but added that it is not wise to rush to a decision on capital
punishment while the developments are still recent. "These issues will be
extensively discussed, as it requires constitutional reform. We cannot either
accept or reject this demand outright," Yildirim said.
The death penalty in Turkey was abolished in 2004, although Turkey had not
actually executed any prisoners since October 1984. Speaking to Daily Sabah on
Tuesday, the chairman of Parliament's Justice Commission, Ahmet Iyimaya, did
not rule out the possibility of reinstating the death penalty. "Turkey is still
under an unprecedented threat. Our aim is to avert this crisis and law is an
indispensable weapon in this fight," Iyimaya said. "The reforms regarding the
current laws should be discussed only after this existing threat is eliminated.
Instead of individual opinions, the collective wisdom of the legislative and
the executive [branches] is crucial. It is definite that Turkey, with its 2,000
years of experience, will decide for the best." he added.
Cem Duran Uzun, a constitutional lawyer and director of Law and Human Rights at
the Political, Economic and Social Research Foundation (SETA) in Ankara,
however, stressed the difficulties of reinstating the death penalty. "There are
many conventions prohibiting capital punishment, which were signed by Turkey.
The re-implementation of capital punishment is also challenging due to
international agreements. The Council of Europe, co-founded by Turkey, also
prohibits this type of punishment," Duran said. "Moreover, the AK Party
[Justice and Development Party] completely removed capital punishment clauses
from the Constitution in 2004. As a side note, even though clauses existed in
the constitution and certain laws for a long time, since 1984, none of the
court decisions for capital punishment were rejected by Parliament."
Constitutional law academic from Yildirim Beyazit University in Ankara Dr.
Taylan Barin said that the Constitution should be reformed to re-implement
capital punishment. "Probably there will be a referendum regarding this reform.
If the political parties and the people continue to support the
re-implementation of capital punishment, it might be possible," Barin said.
Regarding retroactive punishment, Barin affirmed that this could be possible if
the capital punishment still extent in military law is put into practice. "In
the military penal code, with the 20th clause, capital punishment is possible.
However, as the Constitution does not have a similar clause, this became
obsolete. If there is a new constitutional amendment that approves capital
punishment, this clause of the military penal code might be re-introduced,"
Barin said. Moreover, Barin signified that the re-introduction of capital
punishment could have certain repercussions in the international community.
"The political administration will try to achieve a balance between the people
and the international community. If they chance the repercussions, they might
re-introduce capital punishment."
Meanwhile, a number of EU officials have voiced concerns over the discussion.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini said on Monday that re-instating the
death penalty in Turkey would end EU accession talks. "Turkey is an important
part of the Council of Europe and is bound by the European Convention on Human
Rights, which is very clear on the death penalty," she said. "The introduction
of the death penalty would mean the immediate suspension of accession talks,"
German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said on Monday. Austrian Foreign
Minister Sebastian Kurz shared the same sentiment. "The introduction of the
death penalty would of course be absolutely unacceptable," Kurz said in an
interview with the Austrian Kurier newspaper on Monday.
(source: Daily Sabah)
****************
UK says reinstating death penalty in Turkey would be retrograde step
Turkey's international standing would be severely damaged if it decides to
reinstate the death penalty, British foreign office minister Alan Duncan told
parliament on Tuesday.
"It is very strongly the view of Her Majesty's government that we oppose the
death penalty," Duncan said, responding to comments from Turkish President
Tayyip Erdogan who said on Sunday after an attempted coup that there could be
no delay in using capital punishment.
"It would be a deeply retrograde step that would likely cause incalculable
damage to the standing of Turkey just at a time when it is important to embrace
them within the world community," Duncan said.
(source: Reuters)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
Death sentence for 2 Indians in woman's murder case upheld----The verdict in
the murder case was delivered by the Court of Appeal.
A Doha appeals court has upheld the death sentence given to 2 Indian men by the
trial court for the murder of an elderly Qatari woman at her home in 2012. The
3rd defendant, also an Indian, has been given a life sentence.
Speaking to this newspaper, Indian legal activist Nizar Kocheri said the issue
was brought to his attention only 2 days ago and it has been decided to appeal
the verdict at the Supreme Court before the deadline for appealing ends on July
30. Kocheri said he has also discussed the matter with Indian embassy
officials.
It is learnt the prosecution has appealed for capital punishment for the third
defendant also.
The verdict in the murder case was delivered on May 30 by the Court of Appeal
but the issue came to light only when Suresh Kumar, a lawyer from India, who
was deputed by the South Asian Fishermen Fraternity (SAFF) arrived in Doha a
couple of days ago to follow up the case. Kumar had also met Indian embassy
officials in this regard.
The trio, who were found guilty of the murder, were identified as Alagappa
Subramaniam, Chinnadurai Perumal and Sivakumar Arasan, all reported to be in
their early 40s and natives of Villupuram, Virudhunagar and Salem,
respectively, in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
At least 1 of the 3 was working at the home where the murder took place, a
source told this newspaper.
The crime was committed towards the end of 2012 and 2 of the accused were
awarded capital punishment by a local court on December 31, 2014. The trial
court had sentenced the 3rd accused to life in prison. In May this year, the
Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.
In a previous case, 3 other Asian expatriates, 2 Indians and a Nepali, were
sentenced to death for the killing of an Indonesian housemaid in 2003. Though
the appeals court upheld the lower court's verdict, it was commuted to life for
the Indians and 15 years in jail for the Nepali by the apex court in 2011.
While the Indians in this case have been identified as Sreedharan Manikantan
and Unnikrishnan Mahadevan, both taxi drivers, the Nepali's name was given as
Chandrasekhar Yadav. The proceedings of the sensational case had begun with the
arrest of the trio in December 2003 after the maid's body was found in October
that year at the Wakrah beach.
The accused were spared the death penalty as they were given the benefit of
doubt by the Supreme Court.
The then Indian ambassador George Joseph had been instrumental in securing the
reprieve for the defendants in that case, Kocheri recalled.
"It was an extraordinary case because it was heard by the Supreme Court 3
times," he said.
(source: Gulf Times)
BARBADOS:
Mandatory death penalty to go
Prime Minister Freundel Stuart today made a preemptive strike against the
Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) as his administration prepares to resume
debate on the removal of the mandatory death penalty.
In wrapping up debate on the Constitution Amendment Bill 2016 which sought to
extend the retirement age for both the Auditor General and the Director of
Public Prosecutions from 62 to 67, Stuart took a less-than-subtle jab at the at
BLP over the country's participation in the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights.
The Prime Minister told the House that the court was thrust upon Barbadians in
2000 without a national discussion.
The BLP was in office when Barbados joined the judicial institution which
promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas.
"We woke up one morning and heard that we had submitted to the jurisdiction of
the Inter-American Court and that cases could go there in accordance to the
Inter-American Convention. There was no referendum, no discussion. It just
happened," Stuart said. He explained that as a result of the country's
participation in the court, Barbados was obligated to get rid of the mandatory
death sentence.
"When we submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, we entered a reservation
on the issue of the death penalty [and] the court ruled that the reservation
which we entered [was]of no legal effect; it could not achieve the objective
which we wanted to achieve and therefore we had to comply with this order to
remove the mandatory death penalty."
Stuart explained that because the mandatory death penalty did not comply with
the American Convention on Human Rights Barbados could not ignore the court's
orders.
"We were advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General's
office, that if an order has been made against the Government of Barbados on
such an important an issue as the removal of the mandatory death penalty, we
cannot just turn a blind eye to that order and pretend that it is not there. We
must demonstrate that we obey court orders as well," he said.
Stuart said Barbados remained the only English-speaking Caribbean country under
the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court.
"Barbados submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court
around 2000-2001, the USA has not submitted itself to that court, Canada has
not submitted itself to that court. One Caribbean country, Trinidad and Tobago
had, and withdrew from the court because it was thought that the court's arm
reached too far into the everyday life of Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados is
still a member of the court.
"I am aware that there are initiatives afoot to regularize our relationship
with the court but we could not do other than to bring that particular
amendment before the house as we have done," he added.
"That debate has started in this house, the debate has not yet finished because
there were some issues that were raised along the way which the Attorney
General wanted to check and we are back to that debate on the mandatory death
penalty. The debate has started and about 6 or 7 persons have spoken already,"
the Prime Minister said.
(source: Barbados Today)
_______________________________________________
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
