Will a New Malaysia Kill the Old Death Penalty?

Source: The Diplomat (18 October 2018)

https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/will-a-new-malaysia-get-rid-of-the-old-death-penalty/

In a sign of potential reform, the Malaysian government of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad appears to be moving toward abolishing the death penalty. Though there is still some uncertainty around how things will eventually play out, it has nonetheless sparked a conversation about potential alternatives the country could adopt in this respect.

Malaysia is not alone in having the death penalty in Southeast Asia. While a few countries have abolished the death penalty in recent decades, such as Cambodia and the Philippines, it is still used in other countries like Indonesia and Singapore and remains on the books in other places such as Brunei and Laos. Despite variations in frequency of use, it has at times led to unwanted tensions in diplomatic relations with countries opposed to the death penalty.

In Malaysia, by one estimate, about 1,200 people are on death row for crimes ranging from murder to drug trafficking. Charges like rape that causes death, child rape, kidnapping, and terrorism also carry the death penalty.

Law Minister Liew Vui Keong has raised the possibility of Malaysia getting rid of the death penalty and considering alternatives. Liew has cast this as part of a wider promise by the new government in its election manifesto to get rid of oppressive and cruel laws in the country.

The re-evaluation, which initially made headlines around the World Day Against the Death penalty, has been tentatively welcomed by international rights groups and was an obvious cause for celebration by those on death row. Amnesty International led the chorus of human rights groups that are campaigning for an end to the death penalty, saying the Malaysian decision was “a major step forward” for what is “an ultimate cruel, inhumane, degrading punishment.”

Despite the initial optimism, the exact path forward for Malaysia in this respect remains unclear. The Law Minister has expanded on why a reconsideration is necessary, pointing to the fact that there has been a government study conducted indicating that there is no deterrent effect from the death penalty. He also has ordered a halt on all executions until legislation is gazetted and comes into effect.

“Since we are abolishing the sentence, all executions should not be carried out… We will inform the Pardons Board to look into various applications for convicts on the waiting list to either be commuted or released.”

To address concerns among some, including lawmakers, Liew has also subsequently said that Malaysia will approach any re-evaluation carefully, including making sure that the death penalty is replaced by some version of life imprisonment or longer jail terms, with a terms of 30 years being thrown out as an example.

But the Malaysian Bar has warned that death sentences should not automatically be replaced by these alternatives, but rather be replaced by specific jail terms in relation to the severity of their offences and other specific circumstances.

“Only then will the punishment of imprisonment meted out be just and effective,” its president George Varughese said in a statement on October 16.

One thing is for certain: if Malaysia does get rid of the death penalty, it will be in good company. Malaysia will emerge as the 107th country to rid itself of state-sanctioned killing, compared with just 64 nations just two decades ago.

Luke Hunt can be followed on Twitter @lukeanthonyhunt

Appeal: End death penalty in East Asia

The Centre for Prisoners' Rights and Amnesty International Japan continue to appeal for people to sign their petition and distribute it widely, calling for the abolition of the death penalty in East Asia.

Please print and sign the petition available here. The text of the petition is copied below.

Citizens’ Appeal for an Abolition of the Death Penalty in East Asia
December 2009

To:
People’s Republic of China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, State of Mongolia, Taiwan

(CC: Republic of Korea, Republic of the Philippines, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China)

In 2008, most of the executions in the world were carried out in Asia. 11 countries in Asia as a whole, and five countries in East Asia, namely, China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam, continue to have the death penalty.

China alone accounts for about three quarters of the executions in the world and at least 1,718 death sentences were carried out.

In China, statistics on the death penalty and executions are a state secret, so the actual number is considered to be significantly higher than that.

In Vietnam, the death penalty is stipulated as the maximum sentence for a total of 29 offences defined in the criminal code, including illicit drug trafficking. Executions are by firing squad.

In Japan, there are currently more than 100 death-row inmates awaiting their executions. Executions by hanging in Japan are carried out secretively and the death-row inmates are notified of their execution only immediately before they take place.

In the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, executions are either by firing squad or by hanging. Executions are conducted secretively but there is an indication that public executions are conducted for the purpose of making an example to the people.

In Mongolia, executions are a state secret and official statistics, such as the numbers of death sentences, executions, and death-row inmates, are not disclosed. Executions are conducted secretively. The family members of the death-row inmate are not notified of the execution beforehand. After the execution, the body is not returned to the family.

On the other hand, as of 2009, 139 states in the world have abolished the death penalty. In Asia as a whole, 27 states, such as the Philippines and Cambodia, have abolished the death penalty either de jure or de facto.

In the 20th century, many lives were taken in East Asia by the state or because of ideology. The death penalty has been used to impose the will of the state and as a tool of political repression. The state is still taking away the lives of the citizens by way of the death penalty. To put an end to this situation, East Asian states should renounce the state-sponsored violence known as the death penalty.

There are no empirical data verifying that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on heinous crimes. On the contrary, it is pointed out that the death penalty promotes violence.

In any country, those that are sentenced to death are skewed to vulnerable groups in the society, such as those in poverty and minorities. What gives rise to crimes in many cases is often poverty and social discrimination. Removing offenders from society by the death penalty does not solve the problem.

Having recognized the issues inherent in the death penalty system, we the signers below are petitioning for the realization of an East Asia without the death penalty.

We hereby request that:
* the taking of lives not be used as a means of punishment;
* the innocent not be killed;
* information be disclosed so that we can think for ourselves whether the death penalty is necessary;
* those that have erred not be cast away; and
* a society with few crimes be created without relying on the death penalty.

We the citizens hope for a truly peaceful society. We the citizens hope for a society without the death penalty. We the citizens hope for a tolerant society. Please heed our voices, the voices of the citizens.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Taking note of the significance of the 20th anniversary, we call on the East Asian states that retain capital punishment to abolish the death penalty system.

Signature:
Message:

The petition organized and collected by:

The "We Can Do Without the Death Penalty" Campaign
Joint Secretariat:
Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan and Amnesty International Japan
Kyodo Bldg. 4F, 2-2 Kandanishiki-cho, chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan 101-0054
E-mail: petition_adp@amnesty.or.jp
Fax +81-3-3518-6778
HP: http://www.abolish-dp.jca.apc.org/

The “We Can Do Without the Death Penalty” campaign was launched in 2008 in Japan, aiming to raise a voice and to think together about what is wrong with the death penalty, setting aside various differences. The Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan and Amnesty International Japan serve as the joint secretariat and various other organizations, individuals, and networks participate in this campaign.

Malaysia: Legal questions over death penalty

Death penalty losing appeal
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

From The Star online
Wednesday 17 November, 2010

The trend worldwide is to move away from the death penalty, acknowledging that the quality of our civilisation is judged as much by how we honour our heroes as by how we treat the worst in our midst.

DURING question time in the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 9, Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, our articulate Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, in replying to MP Karpal Singh, defended the existing law on death penalty by pointing out that the Malaysian position is consistent with Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Under this celebrated Covenant, there is no absolute ban on death sentences. However, the "inherent right to life" is recognised and the death sentence may be imposed "only for the most serious crimes".

There must be a right of appeal to the higher courts and the right to apply for pardon. The death sentence should not be imposed on pregnant women and those below 18.

In a spirit of openness, the minister welcomed further discussion on the issue. This must be commended. At the same time, we must alert the Government that on several scores Malaysian law is out of sync with a growing body of international law on capital punishment.

The trend throughout the world is to move away from the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by 57 states, commits itself to total abolition.

European and American Conventions have also moved in that direction. The UN Commission on Human Rights by Resolution 2004/67 has called for a moratorium on executions.

According to Amnesty International, 87 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Eleven countries have abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as war-time betrayals. Twenty-seven countries retain the death penalty but have not carried out any execution for the past 10 years.

This makes a total of 125 countries that have moved away from the death penalty in law or practice. However 71 other countries – including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the US, Malaysia and Singapore – retain, and use, the death penalty.

It is also notable that even for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide triable by the International Criminal Tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

In most countries of the world, drug offences are not regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant a death penalty. However, drug trafficking carries the mandatory death sentence under section 39B of our Dangerous Drugs Act.

Under Section 37, a number of crushing presumptions apply. For example, a person in the care or management of a premises is deemed to be the occupier of the premises.

A person in possession of 15 grammes of heroin or morphine, 1000 grammes of opium, 200 grammes of cannabis and specified amounts of other dangerous drugs shall be presumed to be a trafficker. The burden of proof is on him.

Reprehensible though drug possession and trafficking are, a clear fact is that people who get caught are often not involved in the high ranks of the supply chain. The main players are neither apprehended nor deterred.

A further objectionable feature of our death penalty laws is that for the crimes of murder, drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and attempt by a life-convict to murder if hurt is caused, capital punishment is mandatory and the court has no choice but to impose the penalty of death.

All mandatory punishment laws compel the courts to treat the many accused as alike even though there may be substantial differences in the facts of the case.

For example, if a woman has been raped and the culprit is, for whatever reason, either not apprehended or acquitted, and the ravished victim then takes the law in her own hands and kills the accused, she may be convicted of cold-blooded murder with only one penalty: mandatory death.

Surely the judge should have discretion in such a case to impose the lighter sanction of imprisonment. To the extent that unlike cases have to be treated as alike, mandatory sentences are a violation of the constitutional ideal of equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Mandatory sentences are also an indirect interference with judicial independence and the right of a judge to tailor the penalty to suit the crime; to temper justice with mercy and to be fair to all sides – the victim of the crime, the accused and society at large.

Many judges in their private moments have spoken with remorse of the death sentences they had to impose even though there were extenuating circumstances.

There is overwhelming evidence that as long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. For example, in the US, since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released after evidence emerged of their innocence of crimes for which they were sentenced to death.

Their sentences were based on prosecutorial or police misconduct, forced confessions, unreliable witnesses and inadequate defence representation.

The argument that the death penalty deters is not supported by sufficient scientific studies. This is specially so in relation to murder, which is often a crime in the heat of the moment when consequences are farthest from contemplation. Further, UN studies indicate that abolitionist countries do not show any upsurge in crime.

There is a fair amount of social data that, around the world, the death penalty is unequally administered. It tends to apply disproportionately to the poor, marginalised and the minorities.

In support of capital punishment, one could argue that no known legal system exhibits an unconditional and absolute reverence for life.

Everywhere there are laws on private defence of person and property, euthanasia, abortion and police powers that permit the extinguishing of life in certain circumstances. The Charter of the UN permits some types of wars.

Society must take a tough stand against violent crimes and must exact revenge or retribution. It is submitted that this attitude must be balanced with an equally compelling ethical issue that as God gives life, only He should take it away.

The death penalty is a form of legalised murder. It reflects primordial instincts of violence. It perpetuates a vicious cycle of brutality.

I think Malaysia should rethink its extensive provisions for death penalty. At the moment, the penalty can be imposed for a large number of offences – waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, offences against a Ruler or Governor, abetting mutiny in the armed forces, murder, abetment of suicide, attempt by a life-convict to murder if hurt is caused, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, hostage taking, gang robbery with murder, drug trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms.

Even if total abolition is not seen as desirable because of the age of terrorism in which we are living in, a narrowing down of the offences for which the death penalty is imposed can be considered. The mandatory nature of the penalty could be lifted and judicial discretion restored.

We must remember that the quality of our civilisation is judged as much by how we honour our heroes as by how we treat the worst in our midst.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor Emeritus at UiTM and Honorary Legal Advisor to USM

Pakistan: Family condemns blasphemy sentence

Family leads outcry at blasphemy death penalty
Anger at Pakistan's 'discriminatory' laws grows as the Christian Asia Bibi appeals against sentence for insulting Mohamed

By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent
From: The Independent, Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Campaigners in Pakistan say the case of Asia Bibi – the first woman to be sentenced to death for blasphemy – highlights the need for urgent reform of laws that are routinely used to persecute minorities and settle grudges.

The 45-year-old Christian, who has at least two children, was sentenced to death by a court in Sheikhupura, near Lahore, after prosecutors accused her of insulting the Prophet Mohamed and promoting her own faith. Her family have rejected the allegations and launched an appeal. "We have never ever insulted the Prophet or Islamic scripture, and we will contest the charges," said her husband Ashiq Masih.

While Mrs Bibi may be the first woman to be sentenced to death, Pakistan's blasphemy laws – particularly section 295C of the penal code, introduced by the late dictator Zia ul-Haq – are commonly used against both non-Muslims and Muslim minorities.

Earlier this year, police reinforcements had to be called to Faisalabad when two Christians charged with blasphemy were shot dead outside the court. In 1998, John Joseph, the then Catholic Bishop of Faisalabad, committed suicide to protest against the treatment of Christians.

The campaign to confront the country's blasphemy laws has existed for some years but activists say the movement is hampered by the danger of being accused of undermining Islam. Because of fear of religious conservatives, some of those who would like to see the laws scrapped feel compelled to call for reform rather than repeal.

Human Rights Watch is among the groups that have called for sections 295 and 298 to be scrapped. "Asia Bibi's case should serve as a wake-up call to Pakistan's independent judiciary which urgently needs to address bigotry and incompetence in its ranks and to the government that needs to find the political will to repeal," said the group's Pakistan spokesman, Ali Dayan Hasan.

"The laws are discriminatory and intended as such and are used for precisely that purpose. So, the issue is not of their misuse but of the laws being on the statute books at all. Vague all-encompassing wording allows the laws to be used as an instrument of political and social coercion, legal discrimination and persecution."

Veteran human rights campaigner Asma Jahangir, who was recently elected head of the country's powerful Supreme Court Bar Association, is among those who have defended people accused of blasphemy, most famously in the case of a 14-year-old boy, Salamat Masih, who was accused of writing blasphemous words on the wall of a mosque. After Ms Jahangir successfully defended the teenager on appeal, the judge who acquitted him was murdered.

"At first these laws were used against minorities but now a number of Muslims have also been victimised. Once someone is accused of blasphemy you have to be very strong to defend yourself," she said. "Every time something like this [case] happens, there is a loud noise about reform. There is a draft reformed law that is with the government but the government is sitting on it. It's such a tricky issue because of the noise made by the extreme right."

The precise details of Mrs Bibi's case are unclear. Reports say the woman, who lives with her family in the village of Ittanwali, west of Lahore, had been working in the fields in June last year when she was sent to fetch water. When she returned, some Muslim women refused to drink it, saying it was unclean because it had been carried by a Christian. The women then fought.

At that point the other women went to a local cleric, Qari Salim, and several days later he filed a legal complaint with the police. When the case was eventually concluded last week, in addition to being sentenced to death, Mrs Bibi was also ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 Pakistani rupees (£2,180).

Last night, Mrs Bibi's husband told The Independent: "My wife was picking phalsa in the fields when she had a fight with her other workers over some triviality. The other three got together and accused my wife of desecrating the Holy Koran It was not even a men's fight in the village, but a trivial tussle between women."

Campaigners say many of the blasphemy cases that come to court are the result of personal grudges or disputes that have ended with one side or the other resorting to the powerful legislation to settle the issue.

While no one has yet been executed for blasphemy, the laws carry severe punishments. Earlier this year Pakistan's Supreme Court released a woman who had been held in jail for 14 years for blasphemy.

The court said the woman, Zaibunnisa, 60, from Rawat, near Islamabad, had been held even though "no evidence" had been found against her.

Pakistan: Repeal Pakistan's blasphemy law

From: The Guardian online

If Pakistan is serious about freedom of speech its blasphemy law must go
Michael Nazir-Ali
The Guardian, Saturday 13 November 2010

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, is the first woman to have been convicted under Pakistan's notorious blasphemy law. But numerous Christians like her and others have been victims of it, either because they have made a comment which has been construed as critical of the prophet of Islam or as a way of settling property and business disputes. Now she has become the first person to be sentenced to death under it.

Did she blaspheme Muhammad? It seems more likely that she angered her tormentors in a theological discussion about the relative merits of Christianity and Islam. Such debates take place all the time among adherents of different faiths. Whichever it may have been, the law has created intolerable injustice for often powerless people and quite unacceptable restrictions on freedom of speech to which the state of Pakistan is committed.

In undivided India, the British had laws which were meant to prevent incitement to religious hatred (yes, that is where this approach was first tried). The penalties, however, were generally moderate and proportional to the offences. Increasing Islamisation in Pakistan has made these laws more and more draconian. Thus there is now a mandatory life sentence for desecrating the Qur'an and a mandatory death sentence for blaspheming the prophet.

We need to know urgently from our Muslim friends whether these laws are really Islamic. The different formal schools of medieval sharia were unanimous that anyone who insults the prophet is to be put to death and differ only about the method of execution. It is this unanimity which has led the federal shariat court to rule that the death penalty is mandatory and left the judges with little discretion in particular cases.

Against this, the Qur'an only threatens those who insult God or the prophet with a curse and a humiliating punishment in this life and the next. It is claimed sometimes that the execution of poets, such as Ka'ab ibn al-Ashraf, for insulting the prophet is a precedent for executing blasphemers. On the other hand, it is said that they were put to death not for blaspheming but for sedition. The Hadith also tells us that while some were punished, others were freely pardoned by Muhammad himself. The question is, which of these attitudes is to prevail in Muslim nations and communities today?

It may be that a country like Pakistan needs laws to prevent religiously aggravated hatred discrimination. Such laws would be very different from the present ones and would protect religious minorities equally with Muslims.

How can Asia Bibi and others be saved from the gallows? The blasphemy law is a bad law enacted under pressure from extremists who threaten violence if the government does anything to lessen its impact or to ameliorate the lot of those who have fallen victim to it. A bad law will always come back to haunt us and that is why our ultimate aim must be its repeal.

Pakistan is a signatory to international agreements which prohibit cruel and degrading punishment. It is time for it to honour its commitments and to stand up to extremist purveyors of hate, if it is to have a respected place in the family of nations. The international community, the UN, the Commonwealth and the EU must do everything they can to make sure this vulnerable woman does not suffer the extreme penalty and that others, like her, are not subjected to months and even years of harassment, imprisonment and anxiety as they await a final verdict on their cases.

Australians must confront death penalty

Looking away from the death penalty abroad is collusion
By Brigid Delaney
From: Sydney Morning Herald, 22 October 2010

Globalisation has swept the world, but the mediaeval remedy remains.

Poor Colin Campbell Ross. The 29-year-old Victorian was hanged in 1922 for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. It was later found that they got the wrong man.

On Monday, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls formally returned Ross's cremated remains to his family.

In 1981, France's Justice Minister abolished the death penalty, saying it was untenable as it depended on the impossible premise of "totally responsible guilty parties" and "absolutely infallible judges".

French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy said recently, with a note of Gallic exasperation, "To think we still have to argue against the death penalty".

In the case of the Bali nine, Scott Rush, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are literally arguing for their lives. They may have admitted various levels of culpability in their roles after the April 2005 heroin bust, and it is proper they should be brought to account, but the great injustice here is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Moreover, the punishment should be regarded as a crime.

It's interesting watching Australian politicians on this matter - their responses speak somehow to character, like a low tide revealing water marks; the Christian who thinks that only God has the power to take life, the humanist who recoils at such awesome power invested in the state, and the diplomat who believes state sovereignty is sacred.

The narrative that engulfs death row cases flows on regardless: the grainy footage of the arrests, the shock and denial of the accused, the deep distress to the families and friends. The introduction into their lives of the media. The organisation of legal teams. The diplomatic approaches, the hearings and appeals, the religious awakening in prison, the vigils of supporters, the masses, the pleas for clemency, the prayers and the petitions.

Towards the end there is, as there was with Australian Nguyen Tuong Van (executed almost five years ago in Singapore for drug trafficking), a sort of public turning. Compassion for the prisoner, sorrow for his family, an acknowledgment that perhaps people can change. Then a lump in the throat, or sudden tearfulness watching the evening news when you hear he has been hanged.

But the central, unmovable thing in all this activity is the legal system that supports the death.

It is before such a legal system that many objections wilt, where we answer our own disquiet about the death penalty with a fey "well, it's their law, so we have to abide by their punishment", as if the legal systems of others were beyond critique. As if they never get it wrong.

Sovereignty is the trump card and for many our inner diplomat speaks louder than our inner Christian or humanist. But what if you believe that the immovable thing, the thing at the centre of it all, is not the legal system but the sanctity of life?

While globalisation has swept the world and continues to radically transform cultures and economies, the barbaric, mediaeval ''remedy'' of the death penalty remains like a recessive gene in a body that has successfully evolved and adapted to modern life.

You wouldn't recognise parts of Shanghai or Beijing, so modern have they become, yet China executes unreported thousands (sending the bill for the single bullet to the families). In December 2009, in great secrecy, they executed Akmal Shaikh, a mentally ill Briton accused of drug smuggling.

You may go to Singapore to buy the most advanced electronic gear (and so cheap) - yet that is where they killed 25-year-old Nguyen with a noose, where he went dignified and prayerfully to his death.

You may go to Bali for an Eat, Pray, Love experience when down the road is Kerobokan prison and the young men are in sweaty little rooms with their lawyers and their hopes.

And the US, where 3000 men and women are waiting in dread (maybe after a while in a kind of toxic boredom) to be put to death by the state. Why do we tolerate the continued existence of this?

Anyone like me who studied humanities at a university in the '90s had it drilled into them not to assume your legal system is better or more enlightened than theirs.

But what is this triumph of cultural relativism in the face of the great opportunity that exists for everyone of personal transcendence? That is the unforgettable lesson Nguyen taught us, and repeated in the Kerobokan transformations of Sukumaran and Chan - the computer and art classes they are teaching the other prisoners, their faces more open and luminous with each court appearance.

How is it possible to accept the sovereignty of countries where the legal "remedy" is death?

There are some things so fundamentally abhorrent that to cough politely and look away is uncomfortably close to collusion, at one remove from some baying mob in Tehran gathered at the scaffolding in the square.


Brigid Delaney is a former lawyer, journalist and author of This Restless Life.

Victims call on Taiwan: End death penalty

Victims rights activists urge Taiwan government to reconsider death penalty
By Dennis Engbarth
Taiwan News, Staff Reporter
3 July, 2010

A group of murder victims from the United States and Japan are holding a series of lectures in Taipei and other cities this weekend to support calls by local activists for a cessation of capital punishment in Taiwan.

Under the theme of "Don't Kill in My Name," four members of the U.S. - based "Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights" arrived Friday for a four day visit during which they will hold four public lectures and meet with Kuomintang government officials, murder victim support groups and persons and organizations both supporting and opposing abolition of the death penalty.

Participants in the MVFHR Asia Speech Tour in Taiwan program include Robert Meeropol, the son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were executed in New York's Sing Sing prison in June 1953 on charges of atomic weapon - related espionage for the Soviet Union; Aba Gayle, whose daughter Catherine was murdered at 19 years of age; MVFHR Executive Director Renny Cushing, whose father was murdered and who became an advocate of victims rights; and Toshi Kazama, a photojournalist and victim of a violent crime who initiated the "Ocean" victims support group in Japan.

During a news conference held at the National Taiwan University Alumni Association Friday morning to announce the program for the "Victims, We Care!" speaking tour, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty Executie Director Lin Hsin-yi related that "many people in Taiwan tell advocates of abolition of the death penalty that victims of murders and other violent crimes support the death penalty and that advanced countries like the United States also still have the death penalty."

Lin stated that the MVFHR members "have come to South Korean, Japan and Taiwan "to share their views and experiences on why they as survivors or relatives of victims oppose the death penalty."

Cushing, who is one of the founders of the MVFHR which was formed on Dec. 10, 2004, said "we have all had members of our families murdered but we oppose the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and as a form of torture."

Given Taiwan's past history of "white terror" in which thousands were subject to state sanctioned killings, Cushing said that "we are particularly saddened to see the government of a democratic Taiwan going back to the policy of killing prisoners."

Referring to his experience and thoughts after seeing his father shot before his eyes, Cushing said that "if we let those who kill turn us into killers, then evil will triumph and we will all lose."

"As a survivor, I oppose the death penalty because I do not want to live in a world where governments kill people and I look forward to discussing in Taiwan why we should not kill people in the name of the victims," the MVFHR executive said.

Kazama, who planned the Asian speaking tour and who has photographed execution sites in the Taipei and Kaohsiung detention centers in 2005, stated that "we should hate crime and violence, but not hate yourself or hate those people."

"If you support the death penalty, you should realize that it means that you must have the guts to have a gun in your hand and shoot someone in the name of justice," said Kazama.

"Can you pull the trigger?" asked the Japanese photojournalist, a resident of New York City since 1980, who related that "I have met many executions who suffer emotionally because they have had to kill people like that."

Aba Gayle, a MVFHR member whose daughter Catherine was murdered in 1980 at the age of 19, stated that she learned after 12 years of "a dark time" that "I have a choice about how to live and I chose to stop being a victim."

Gayle related that "I got stuck in anger and rage" for eight years but said that she "realized that anger and rage is detrimental to our health and can destroy us."

"When I heard the letter drop in the mailbox, all the anger, rage and ugliness I had kept in my body for 12 years vanished and I was filled with inner peace and I knew at that moment that I did not need to have anyone executed for me to be healed," Gayle said.

In addition to lectures in Hsinchu City and Taichung City Saturday, the MVFHR group will hold a seminar and concert program Sunday afternoon at the Eslite Hsinyi Bookstore featuring the themes of "Victims of the State Machine?" and "Civic Movements to Protect Victims."

Before leaving Monday, the delegation will also hold private meetings with Justice Minister Huang and victims support groups, human rights organizations and personages and organizations both for and against the death penalty.

Taiwan: Activists' plea for abolition

Government must clarify death penalty policy: activists
Focus Taiwan News
2 June, 2010

Taipei, June 2 (CNA) Disappointed anti-death penalty activists said Wednesday that they will stop pursuing a constitutional interpretation on capital punishment after the Justices of Constitutional Court rejected a petition last week on halting the death penalty.

However, they urged President Ma Ying-jeou to live up to his pledge to end the practice in the future.

Accusing Ma of duplicity, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) , along with over 50 supporters from the medical, environmental, religious and legal sectors, complained that while the president has vowed to abolish the death penalty, he continues to allow the Ministry of Justice to execute people.

In April, Taiwan ended a four-year de facto moratorium on capital punishment by executing four of its 44 death row inmates.

Justice Minister Tseng Yong-fu, who was appointed after his predecessor resigned for refusing to sign off on executions, has been vague on the eventual plight of the remaining 40, saying only that he will respect the decision of the Constitutional Court.

According to the court, the government's adherence to its death penalty policy does not go against the two U.N. covenants -- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- signed by the president in late March.

Human rights lawyer Wellington Koo lamented the court's decision, saying the rejection means the group has exhausted all legal means of swaying the government and that "all we can do now is to plead with the government to hear us out."

According to the TAEDP, Taiwan is one of 18 countries, including the United States and China, that continue to enforce capital punishment.

"The president and the justice minister have publicly vowed to end the death penalty but yet they continue to sign off on death warrants. Their actions make us highly dubious of their true intentions, " said TAEDP Chairwoman Chiu Hei-yuan, urging Ma to clarify his stance.

Another of the activists, Catholic Archbishop John Hung, said that "it has been proven over and over again that the death penalty is not an antidote for reducing violence in society." (By Jenny W. Hsu) ENDITEM/J

Drugs and death: Major new study released

IHRA launches 'The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010' report
17 May 2010

The International Harm Reduction Association released a study on the death penalty for drug offences today on the opening day of the 19th session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, taking place in Vienna. The report, titled ‘The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010’, finds that hundreds of people are executed for drug offences each year around the world, a figure that very likely exceeds one thousand when taking into account those countries that keep their death penalty statistics secret.

The report is the first detailed country by country overview of the death penalty for drugs, monitoring both national legislation and state practice of enforcement. Of the states worldwide that retain the death penalty, 32 jurisdictions maintain laws that prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. The study also found that in some states, drug offenders make up a significant portion – if not the outright majority – of those sentenced to death and/or executed each year.

Direct link to the report. (Please note 2.42MB file.)

Taiwan: Asian human rights criticism

TAIWAN: ADPAN Appeals for Taiwan to continue to Take a Lead
Statement by ADPAN

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) joins others around the world in regretting that the Presidential Office of Taiwan accepted the resignation of former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng on 11 March amid political pressure against the moratorium of the death penalty. ADPAN urges the Taiwanese government to maintain the moratorium and to take a lead towards abolition among Asian countries.

In 2001, the Taiwanese Government announced a policy to gradually abolish the death penalty. The number of executions every year since then had been on the decline. In 2006, mandatory death sentences were eliminated, and no executions have been carried out since the same year. This is in keeping with the global trend toward abolition evident in UN General Assembly resolutions in 2007 and 2008 calling for a global moratorium on executions as a first step toward abolition.

On 14 March, President Ma Ying-jeou pointed out that the general public of Taiwan needs to engage in open discussion on the death penalty and that Taiwan cannot afford to ignore this international trend toward abolition.

ADPAN appeals to the Taiwanese government to do everything within its power to continue its efforts toward abolition, and that any future Minister of Justice shall take all necessary measures to lead Taiwan towards abolition, including ensuring the life of all 44 prisoners currently on death row.

More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. World opinion and practice is shifting inexorably towards abolition.

Representing a regional voice for abolition, ADPAN welcomes the steps taken thus far by the Taiwanese government towards abolition, but urges the Taiwan government to ensure that it does not fall behind other countries in the region that have abolished or are restricting the use of the death penalty: Mongolia’s president announced an official moratorium in January, South Korea has not executed anyone for over 12 years, the Philippines and the Cook Islands respectively abolished the death penalty in 2006 and 2007.

ADPAN is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries mainly from Asia and the Pacific.

Amnesty appeal to Taiwan

Amnesty renews its call for Ma to end capital punishment
By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
31 March, 2010, Page 3
Taipei Times

Amnesty International yesterday renewed its call on President Ma Ying-jeou to abolish the death penalty.

Speaking at a press conference in Taipei to mark the group’s annual report on executions, Roseann Rife, deputy program director for Amnesty’s Asia-Pacific office, said: "Amnesty International reiterated to President Ma Ying-jeou that we look to Taiwan to also be a leader in the region and help influence China and Japan to take similar steps."

Amnesty International secretary-general Claudio Cordone wrote to Ma earlier this month to make a similar appeal.

Rife’s appeal came as the nation looks likely to execute the first of its 44 inmates on death row later this year. There has not been an execution since late 2005.

The issue of whether to abolish the death penalty resurfaced recently after minister of justice Wang Ching-feng was forced to resign because of reactions to a statement in which she made clear her support for the abolition of the death penalty and refused to sign off on outstanding execution orders.

Her successor, Tseng Yung-fu, said he would have no problem signing execution orders once all procedures have been completed.

At the press conference yesterday, Rife said that in many countries, death sentences are often the result of flawed legal procedures.

Many defendants are too poor to hire attorneys and court-appointed lawyers are often inexperienced or have heavy workloads, which is unfair to the defendants.

The rights group also urged Ma to follow the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — which was signed by him last year and is now in force — to protect human rights by abolishing the death penalty.

In its annual report, Amnesty said that China, which uses the death penalty as a political weapon, had the highest number of executions last year.

The report shows that as of last year, 95 countries abolished the death penalty.

Although 58 countries have yet to abolish the death penalty, only 18 performed executions last year.

This was the first year Amnesty disregarded official information published by the Chinese government, which does not release exact figures because "executions are still kept as state secrets in China," Rife said.

The rights group alleges that the actual number of executions in China last year — estimated to be in the thousands — far exceeds the official figures released by Beijing.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY CNA

Australia: No death penalty, no shades of grey

By Professor George Williams
From The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March 2010

The Death Penalty Abolition Bill debated in Federal Parliament last week is the most important initiative on the death penalty for decades. If passed, it will block any state attempt to bring back capital punishment. If it did, the law would be a clear and principled statement that Australia renounces the death penalty now and into the future.

Although the death penalty has been absent from the statute book for 25 years - NSW was the last to eradicate it in 1985 - the new law is needed. The silence in federal law on capital punishment means the death penalty could be reintroduced by any state at any time. This is not only a legal but a political possibility due to statements made over many years by our leaders.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is the latest to try to have it both ways. He said recently he had ''always been against the death penalty'', but went on to say that, in the case of someone ''who cold-bloodedly brought about the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people'', you ''start to think that maybe the only appropriate punishment is death''.

Abbott is not alone in attempting to combine a principled stand with an inconsistent appeal to raw emotion. Politicians from both sides have taken the same course. The attraction is obvious as it is an appeal to populism.

A 2005 Bulletin poll showed that most Australians supported capital punishment. The Australian National University's 2007 Electoral Survey found that 44 per cent of people thought the death penalty should be reintroduced - 38 per cent disagreed. Australia may not have the death penalty, but a sizeable part of the population supports its return.

This leaves Australian law in an unsatisfactory state and our citizens facing the death penalty overseas in an even worse situation. Equivocation on the death penalty by our leaders, such as by recognising it as appropriate for someone like Saddam Hussein, makes it harder to oppose the execution of Australians overseas.

Regarding the Bali bombers, John Howard, as prime minister, said that if the death penalty ''is what the law of Indonesia provides, that is how things should proceed''. Such statements undermine Australian arguments against the death penalty for Australians tried in Indonesia and elsewhere.

This has been pointed out by Scott Rush, one of the Bali Nine, who is facing death. He wrote to the government: ''I don't want to be in any way political but, from a practical point of view of someone inside on death row, it makes practical and good sense to have a consistent position of opposing the death penalty without discrimination.''

Ambiguous statements by our politicians, combined with the silence in our law on the reintroduction of the death penalty, leave the door ajar for its return in a state. A political leader seeking high office could take the law and order debate to a new low by arguing for the reintroduction of the death penalty in response to a particularly heinous crime.

Such a course has even had federal support. In 2003, Howard called for a national debate on the reintroduction of capital punishment as part of new anti-terrorism laws. While he said that he did not personally support this, he nonetheless suggested the death penalty could be raised by state opposition parties as an election issue.

It is time that Australian law and our leaders spoke against capital punishment wherever it is applied and without reservation. The notion that it is acceptable to execute terrorists but not other criminals, or to execute foreign nationals but not Australians, is morally and logically unsustainable. The value of a life is not contingent on a person's nationality or the nature of their crime. Opposition to the death penalty does not permit such shades of grey. Its removal from the law in Australia and elsewhere must be an unequivocal demand.

Unfortunately, no federal law can prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty by a future federal parliament. Prohibiting its reintroduction at the state level is as far as we can go without changing the constitution.

The death penalty was abolished in Australia decades ago but the battle against capital punishment was left incomplete. The possibility remains that it may return under state law. The Federal Parliament must pass the Death Penalty Abolition Bill to ensure this cannot happen.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of NSW

South Korea: News report on constitutional court

Constitutional Court upholds the death penalty
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010

The ruling is expected to revive a debate over the death penalty as South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in 13 years and is classified as “abolitionist in practice”

The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday the death penalty system as prescribed by South Korea’s criminal code is not in violation of the Constitution. However, since six of the nine judges expressed the view that the currently operating system presents misuse and abuse concerns that should be addressed, observers are predicting a revival in the debate over revision and abolition of the death penalty.

In its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of Article 41 in the Criminal Code, containing clauses regarding the death penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled five to four that the article is constitutional. The request for a constitutionality review was submitted earlier by Gwangu High Court. The court stated that the death penalty system “is a type of punishment anticipated by the Constitution.” It also said, “We cannot view the death penalty system as being in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution specifying human dignity and values, and the individual right to life is also included in the limitations on basic rights as specified by Article 37, Item 2 of the Constitution.”

The court added, “The public good, including the protection of the lives of citizens through crime prevention and the realization of justice, is not lesser than the protection of the right to life of a person who has committed a heinous crime.”

In contrast, the four dissenting judges said, “With the right to life, limitation means taking away an entire life, and it is therefore an absolute fundamental right that cannot be taken away by the Constitution.” They also expressed the view that the death penalty system should be abolished through measures such as the implementation of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Among the judges who ruled in favor of the death penalty’s constitutionality, Justices Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan also suggested improvements to the current system. They stated, “It would be desirable to reduce the crimes subject to the death penalty and to amend or abolish the system through legislation rather than through a constitutionality trial.”

Previously, Gwangju High Court requested a constitutionality ruling from the Constitutional Court in September 2008 after receiving a request from an individual, identified by the surname “Oh,” who was charged with murdering four travelers in the costal waters off Boseong County in South Jeolla Province. The court’s decision over the death penalty is its first in over thirteen years. In November 1996, it issued a seven to two ruling affirming the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Currently, there are 57 prisoners in South Korea with confirmed death sentences, while there are two cases, including Oh’s, where the cases are pending in lower courts following a death sentence in the first trial. Ever since carrying out the execution of 23 people in late 1997, however, South Korea has not carried out the death penalty in twelve years and was classified by Amnesty International as “abolitionist in practice.”

In a statement on the Constitutional Court ruling Thursday, the Korean Bar Association called abolition of the death penalty “not simply an improvement of the criminal justice system but an index symbolizing the prestige of the state.”

The Korean Bar Association statement also said, “It is highly regrettable that the Constitutional Court could not go so far as to issue ruling of unconstitutionality when South Korea has been classified as an abolitionist country in practice.”

South Korea: "Dangerous decision" upholds death penalty

Editorial: Dated logic in Constitutional Court’s death penalty decision
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010

The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”

Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.

There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.

The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”

In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.

We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.

The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.

South Korea: Up to parliament to abolish death penalty

Capital Punishment
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010

The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.

In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.

Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.

Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.

All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.

Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.

However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.

It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.

Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.

Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.

South Korea: "TIme to move" against death penalty

EDITORIAL: Capital punishment
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010

In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.

The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.

However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.

However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.

Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.

A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.

However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.

Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."

There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.

Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.

South Korea: "Lost opportunity" to abolish death penalty

Statement from The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
25 Feb, 2010

South Korea: ADPAN regrets the Constitutional Court decision to uphold the death penalty

The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) that is currently attending the 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Geneva regrets today's decision by South Korea’s Constitutional Court to uphold the death penalty.

In a five to four ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that death penalty did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.

South Korea has lost an opportunity to lead on abolition in the region. This decision now goes against a general worldwide trend towards abolition. More than 70 per cent of countries have a moratorium on executions or have abolished the death penalty. It is particularly disappointing given South Korea has not executed in over 12 years and has joined many other countries in the world that have become abolitionist in practice. There are currently 57 people on the death row in South Korea.

Asia holds the record for the highest number of executions in the world. ADPAN representing a regional voice for abolition calls on South Korean government to take a lead and follow other countries in the region that have abolished death penalty: the Philippines in 2006 and the Cooke Islands in 2007.

The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN) is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries. Members are attending 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty which is being held in Geneva from 24 – 26 February.

Indonesia: Call to end death penalty

Repeal Indonesia's Death Penalty: Rights Group
By Camelia Pasandaran
From: Jakarta Globe, 6 January 2010

Indonesian rights group Imparsial on Wednesday expressed concerns over the government’s reluctance to do away with the death penalty.

In its latest report released, the organization said that 21 of the 119 people sentenced to death across the country had been executed between 1998 and December 2009. It said that almost half of those were executed in 2008 alone, when 10 prisoners faced the firing squad.

"From past experience, death row prisoners can wait as long as 20 years before they are finally executed," said Al Araf, a senior research coordinator at the rights group.

He added that of the 119 prisoners on the death row, 55 were foreigners.

"Among the foreigners, the highest number comes from Nigeria, with 11 people," Al Araf said.

The other foreign prisoners on death row are from Australia, Nepal, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the Netherlands.

Al Araf said the government should commute the death sentence to life in prison for psoners that have been on death row for five years or more.

"After five years, the sanction should be changed to a life sentence," he said, adding that more than 60 of those currently on death row have been waiting for more than five years.

Nineteen of the 21 prisoners who have faced the firing squad since 1998 were convicted for murder. Those convicted of drug offenses were the second-largest group, and those convicted of terrorism charges were third.

Indonesia is one of 66 countries around the world that still implements the death penalty. Although the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, it has not adopted the second optional protocol aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.

Despite international pressure, the death penalty is still imposed for crimes in Indonesia.

Al Araf said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, and everyone had the right to life. "As an intrinsic right, there should be no exception in whatever situation," he said. "Instead, the death sentence has been promoted by politicians to show how serious they are in fighting crime. It has become a political commodity to win elections."

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s legal affairs adviser, Denny Indrayana, recently said the government’s stance was in line with a Constitutional Court ruling in March 2007 that threw out a judicial review filed by two Australians on death row, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. They had challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.

South Korea: 'Disappointment' at lack of change

[Interview] "S. Korea slips in being first in Asia to abolish death penalty"
Amnesty International’s Go Euntae talks on not wanting a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International

From The Hankyoreh, 10 October 2009

"There are two kinds of countries in this world. One is the kind that does not kill citizens regardless, and the other is the kind that will kill its citizens at any time according to the circumstances."

Go Euntae, a member of Amnesty International’s international executive committee, sat down with the Hankyoreh on Friday, on the eve of the World Day Against the Death Penalty, Oct. 10. Go said, "If a state has the right to take a citizens’ life, individuals will always be subordinated to the state." He added, "The death penalty is a yardstick that fundamentally determines the relationship between the state and the individual."

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty has designated Oct. 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty and holds related events on that day throughout the world. In South Korea, a commemorative ceremony is being held at Indiespace, Joongang Cinema on Jeo-dong 1-ga Street in Seoul’s Jung-gu district.

Until recently, Go had served as director of Amnesty International’s Korea branch since 2006, and had also served from 2002 and 2004. In August, he was elected the first Korean member of the Amnesty International’s international executive committee. This came 12 years after the last figure from the Asia region had been elected to the committee in 1997. The committee consists of nine members who serve four-year terms, during which time they represent Amnesty International activities throughout the world and execute decisions. Go has mainly carried out his duties in South Korea, but he also visits the organization’s headquarters in London, Great Britain, for quarterly meetings.

In the interview, Go expressed his concern about the fact that discussion of applying the death penalty has been surfacing again recently despite South Korea being an "abolitionist country in practice." South Korea received this classification by Amnesty International in 2007, ten years after the last time the death penalty had been carried out, however, the Constitutional Court has still not made any decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty, nor has there been any legislative activity in the National Assembly to abolish it. Justice Minister Lee Kwi-nam said in his National Assembly confirmation hearing last month that he would "seriously examine whether or not to carry out the death penalty."

Regarding recent public opinion in some quarters calling for the execution of 57-year-old child rapist Cho Du-sun, Go said that the death penalty should not be viewed as a solution in this case. "Rather than a method in which the wrongdoer is separated from ‘us, the innocent ones’ and met with severe punishment, I think it more proper to question why a person like that was able to commit a crime like that in our society," he observed.

Go also communicated growing concerns among the international community. "In the international human rights community, there were high hopes that South Korea would be the first to abolish the death penalty in Asia, which is seen as a ‘hole in global human rights,’" he said. "However, recently, disappointment has been growing within the international community," he added. Some 1,838 executions were carried out in Asian countries including China and Japan in 2008, accounting for 76.9 percent of all executions worldwide.

When asked what role he hopes Amnesty International will play, Go said, "I do not want to make a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International that remains off in the distance and then pops in once a year to give presents. I want to make the ‘guy next door’ Amnesty International."

Amnesty damns Japan's death row as cruel, inhuman

From ABC Radio Australia
11 September 2009

The use of the death penalty is on the decline globally. Japan is one of the few industrialised countries to continue to use it, hanging a smalll number of prisoners each year. Amnesty International says the conditions for those on Japan's death row to be curel, inhuman and degrading.

Listen to the interview here.

Presenter: Stephanie Foxley
Speaker: James Welsh, Amnesty International's health expert

WELSH: Yes, this report deals with mental health aspects of death penalty in Japan. We have have had long standing concerns about the death penalty itself in Japan but of growing concern are reports that mentally ill prisoners are being sentenced to death and are being executed. what we've found in trying to investigate the problem was firstly that there are major obstacles to anyone finding out information about the situation of prisoners on death row in Japan it's a very secret and secretive system and this has been found not just by us but by lawyers in Japan and also UN bodies trying to assess the situation. What we found was that prisoners on death row are kept in very harsh conditions, they are isolated, the are prevented from talking to staff or other prisoners and this level of pressure, together with the knowledge that they are going to be executed has a major impact on their mental health. Added to that there's a fact that prisoners are not given a date of their execution, which means every day the potentially face the fact that this could be their last day and this ratchets up the level of pressure on the prisoners. The families of course, are likewise not given notice of the execution of their family member. So all in all it's secretive, it's harsh and it's likely to give rise to high levels of mental stress.

FOXLEY: How many prisoners are we talking about?

WELSH: At the moment there are 102 prisoners on death row in Japan. There are other prisoners who's trials are ongoing, so some of those will certainly join their fellow prisoners on death row. Then others may face execution or may die of natural causes.

FOXLEY: What's the percentage of those that have been diagnosed as mentally ill?

WELSH: Well, that's an extremely relevant question and one that's very hard to answer precisely because of the level of secrecy that applies. We site 5 cases in our report, two of which we give in considerable detail drawing on court documents on medical assessments made for the court. But the answer is, we just don't know, we suspect that there are high levels of mental health problems ranging from mild to very serious, but we just don't know.

FOXLEY: Are there not international standards that are supposed to be followed with regard to the welfare of prisoners, even those on death row?

WELSH: Yes, all prisoners should be protected by basic standards. The Human Rights Committee for the UN has made precisely this point to the Japanese authorities on many many occasions, particularly expressing grave concern about the lack of notice of execution and the impact that could have on prisoners. but up to this point that has been no satisfactory response from the authorities. Now, there was an election in Japan very recently, and a new government will come to power next week, they have committed themselves to a public dialogue on the death penalty, so we see this as quite a hopeful point of entry for our report and for a wider discussion on the death penalty itself in Japan.

FOXLEY: Have you had any confirmation that there will be a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty permanently?

WELSH: There has been no such commitment given, we would be very keen to see such a moratorium take place to allow for a proper debate. We will be making this point to the new government and we will have to see how they respond.

FOXLEY: If the death penalty is not abolished, is there likely to be any abuse of claiming mental illness to avoid the death penalty, is this perhaps one of Japans worries?

WELSH: I don't know if it's a worry. It's a point that can be raised or discussed, in some of the cases we are talking about, the evidence is quite striking. We don't have any concerns that there could be fraud or faked mental illnesses, it's not an easy thing to fake effectively, particularly given the nature of some of the prisoners, they are not medical students, they haven't read up on mental health issues. So, it's a point that can be raised but it's a trivial point and I expect the debate to come down to that level.