"I Cannot Take Off My Straw Sandals: Our Family's Lifelong Journey Seeking Justice for the Wrongfully Convicted"

"I Cannot Take Off My Straw Sandals: 
Our Family's Lifelong Journey Seeking Justice for the Wrongfully Convicted".

by Michiko Furukawa

Translated from the Japanese by Joel Challender

Foreword by Sister Helen Prejean


"I have worn straw sandals for ten years to help innocent prisoners. I keep walking through towns and villages shouting out about their innocence. One day, maybe...everybody will help release them. For otherwise...I cannot take off my straw sandals."

---Tairyu Furukawa

In the spring of 1961, Tairyu Furukawa, a Buddhist prison chaplain, suddenly became concerned that two death row prisoners under his watch were likely innocent. He discussed these fears with his wife Michiko, and from that instant, both decided to put their entire efforts into preventing wrongful executions. Both fought and suffered for many years, raising their children in abject poverty battling for the two prisoners.

The case, known as the 'Fukuoka Incident', is still very well known in Japan. And the quest for justice continues even today. In May of 1947, two clothes merchants, one Japanese and one Chinese, were shot and killed. The murder was linked to the burgeoning postwar black market in clothing. Two men were arrested, tried and sentenced to death. The prosecution claims the two conspired, but neither knew the other.

Furukawa, upon hearing the two men's stories became alarmed. He quit most of his ministerial activities, and worked full time pouring over the expansive trial transcripts which amounted to thousands of pages. He sought and received help from attorneys, law professors, and witnesses.

An Amazing Journey

Michiko Furukawa grew up in a well to do family, and attended an elite college in Tokyo, quite far from her native, rural Kyushu. Married at 21, she accompanied her husband to China during the war years. Life was comfortable until May 1945, when Russia renounced the non-aggression pact with Japan. Michiko's then husband was sent to the front, and she worried constantly about his safety, and later, of being raped by Russian soldiers.

Ironically, the woman who had grown up in opulence would end up doing laundry for the Russian army to make ends meet.

She returned to Japan in June 1946, "having frantically managed to survive in former Manchuria." Her husband, like other Japanese taken p.o.w by the Russians, remained a postwar slave. Two years later he died of disease. At age 30, Michiko was a war widow with two children.

An Auspicious Encounter

War widows in Japan had little chance of future marriage. Thousands of available women, few available men. Michiko began attending religious services conducted by a charismatic Buddhist minister. They grew close and Tairyu Furukawa, much to the widow's delight, proposed marriage.

They had little money, and the honeymoon was a lecture circuit around the island of Kyushu. One stop was a leper sanatorium. When she watched him on the stage comforting the residents, "tears of gratitude welled up inside me," and, "I wholeheartedly assented that my life's mission would be to support him. "

Eight years after marriage, Tairyu discovered the two prisoners. Michiko was running a Japanese style inn, but they would shore up juvenile delinquents and paroled prisoners. Very little money was coming from guests. Tairyu even wanted to draw back from his religious activities which would further deplete finances. When Michiko heard the plight of the two men, she was unperturbed, "I will steadfastly support you from behind the scenes. We will do this together."

A Turning Point

The couple suffered through deprivation after deprivation, even having their water shut off on New Year’s Day. A turning point came with the visit of a Tokyo attorney who wanted to assist in the case. At least he appeared to be an attorney. One of the Furukawa children noticed his face on the police's "most wanted list." He was arrested at their house, and the Fukuoka case received national attention.

14 years after the Furukawas began their efforts to save the two men, joy and tragedy occurred. On June 17, 1975, one of the defendants was granted a commutation - his sentence was converted to life. The next day, the other prisoner was hanged in the detention center.

I have been familiar with this case for many years, but one fact is very elusive. The prisoner whose sentence was commuted never claimed to be innocent. He testified that he shot the two clothing merchants in self-defence. Why did the Furukawas support him so strongly, and why was his sentence commuted? To this day, I am still befuddled with this point.

The Struggle Continues

Even after the hanging, the Furukawas continued to advocate for the two men. They took their case to the international arena. Despite enduring such dire poverty, Tairyu would later meet Mother Teresa in Poland, and Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. He passed away in the year 2000.

Sister Helen Prejean even became involved. She visited Japan in 2001 to publicize the case, and I attended one of the talks. The book contains an unforgettable picture of her with "Mama Michiko."

Michiko passed away in 2010. Her life of childhood opulence, surviving postwar deprivations in China and postwar Japan, her selfless support for her husband and so many others who cried for help, is an amazing tale. It is the story of a woman with daunting intelligence, an indomitable will, a love of justice, and altruistic dedication to the human spirit.

Reviewed by Michael H. Fox
Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center www.jiadep.org

NOTE: The quest for justice of the defendants in the Fukuoka case continues. The Furukawa children maintain a website: www.schweitzer-temple.com

Japan executions: Inside the secretive, efficient death chambers

Source: News.com.au

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/japan-executions-inside-the-secretive-efficient-death-chambers/news-story/e650b790265fcf2dafc2f8ba9fa1e52f

THERE are polished floors, clean surroundings and symbolic statues.

But this place is far from peaceful and there’s a reason why it’s known as the Tokyo death house.

This is where Japan hangs its criminals in secrecy so tight that not even the convicted know when their time is up.

Last week’s execution of two convicted murderers has once again cast light on the country’s practice of putting people to death, a method labelled cruel and inhumane by human rights groups.

Nishikawa, 61, was convicted of killing four female bar owners in western Japan in 1991, while Sumida, 34, was sentenced to death for killing a female colleague in 2011 and dismembering her body.

The government remained unrepentant despite calls from activists to stop the hangings.

“Both are extremely cruel cases in which victims were deprived of their precious lives on truly selfish motives,” Justice Minister Katsutoshi Kaneda said.

“I ordered the executions after careful consideration.”

INSIDE CHAMBER OF DEATH

Japan remains notoriously secret about its use of the death penalty, with the US the only other major developed country which carries out capital punishment.

In Japan, most prisoners wait years for their fate to be carried out.

In 2010 the media was given a rare glimpse into the execution chamber in Tokyo where the condemned are put to death.

Prisoners are kept in isolation and have access to a priest before they die.

A statue of Kannon, the goddess of mercy, is in a nearby room, just metres from where prisoners will take their last breath.

They are then led into the chamber and a noose is put around their neck while red boxes around a trapdoor indicate where the condemned are to stand.

In the room next door, three executioners have access to the trap door which will give way once the buttons are pressed.

JAPAN’S SHAME

Human rights group Amnesty International called Japan’s use of the death penalty inhumane and said it showed “wanton disregard for the right to life.”

“The death penalty never delivers justice, it is the ultimate cruel and inhumane punishment,” Hiroka Shoji, East Asia researcher at the campaign group, said in a statement last week.

“Executions in Japan remain shrouded in secrecy but the government cannot hide the fact that it is on the wrong side of history, as the majority of the world’s states have turned away from the death penalty.”

The two men’s deaths bring to 19 the number of people executed in Japan since 2012, with 124 remaining on death row, Amnesty said.

The human rights group also said prisoners were often only given a few hours notice with lawyers and family only notified after it had taken place.

“Secret executions are in contravention of international standards on the use of the death penalty,” Amnesty said.

Nishikawa was hanged while seeking a retrial. But Mr Kaneda indicated it was mistaken to believe that death-row inmates cannot be executed as long as their retrial pleas are pending.

INNOCENT VICTIM

While the two men last week were convicted of murder, not everyone on death row is actually guilty.

In 2014 Iwao Hakamada was released after 45 years on death row after being convicted on falsified evidence.

The former boxer had confessed to murdering four people in 1966 but retracted his statement shortly after.

Once released he said he was coerced into confessing the crime.

Prosecutors claimed the case against Hakamada rested on bloodstained pyjamas. But instead of presenting the pyjamas at the trial they found five other pieces of clothing, each with blood on them, at his workplace.

A court found that a DNA analysis obtained by Hakamada’s lawyers suggested that investigators had fabricated evidence and he was eventually freed.

debra.killalea@news.com.au

Man cleared of murder after over 20 years in jail

Source: Straits Times (2 February 2016)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/man-cleared-of-murder-after-over-20-years-in-jail

SHANGHAI • A man jailed in China more than two decades ago for murder has been acquitted, the latest in a series of wrongful convictions overturned in the country.

Mr Chen Man, who is now 53, was released yesterday from Meilan Prison in south China's Haikou City, in Hainan province, after the Zhejiang Higher People's Court overturned his conviction.

Mr Chen was arrested in 1992, accused of burning down a house in Haikou in which a man died. Stab wounds had been found on the neck and body of the victim and the police later arrested Mr Chen, who is from Sichuan province, for the alleged murder, the China News Service reported.

Mr Chen was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve by Haikou Intermediate People's Court in November 1994.

However, the local procuratorate deemed the sentence "too light" and urged a higher court to adjust it to a death sentence and execute Mr Chen, according to the Zhejiang court. The procuratorate's request was rejected by the Hainan Higher People's Court in 1999, beginning a 16-year appeal ordeal for Mr Chen and his family.

China's top court ordered Mr Chen's case to be re-opened in April last year after he appealed, and the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court retried the case.

Mr Chen Man was convicted solely on the basis of confessions which were "inconsistent" during two trials which convicted him, court judge Zhang Qin said in a statement yesterday.

Yesterday, the High Court of China's eastern Zhejiang province pronounced him not guilty due to "lack of evidence".

"His role in the murder is not clear and the original judgment lacks evidence, therefore, the guilty verdict cannot be confirmed," the Zhejiang court said in its statement.

It said Mr Chen had the right to apply for state compensation.

The president of Hainan Provincial Higher People's Court bowed to Mr Chen after the announcement, the state-run China Daily reported.

The case is the latest highlighting miscarriages of justice in China, where forced confessions are widespread and more than 99 per cent of criminal defendants are found guilty. Mr Chen was convicted solely on the basis of confessions which were "inconsistent" during two trials which convicted him, court judge Zhang Qin said in a statement yesterday.

The government has tried to improve the way courts handle cases of miscarriages of justice following efforts by President Xi Jinping to bolster the rule of law and increase public confidence in the legal system. Wrongful executions have stirred particular outrage, though the death penalty itself remains popular.

Of those exonerated in recent years, Mr Chen spent the longest time in prison, state media said.

For some others, the new verdicts have come too late.

A court in the Inner Mongolia region in 2014 cleared a man named Hugjiltu, who was convicted, sentenced and executed for rape and murder in 1996 at the age of 18.

The declaration of innocence came nine years after another man confessed to the crime.

Twenty-seven officials in China have been "penalised" for his wrongful execution, state news agency Xinhua reported late on Sunday. But only one person will face criminal prosecution, Xinhua said, with 26 others face lighter "administrative penalties".

China officials punished over wrongful execution of teen

Source: BBC News (1 February 2016)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35457033

Twenty-seven Chinese officials have been penalised for the wrongful execution of a teenager, state news agency Xinhua said.

Huugjilt was 18 when he was convicted of the rape and murder of a woman in a factory's public toilet in 1996.

A serial rapist confessed to the crime in 2005 and Huugjilt was formally exonerated in 2014.

Acquittals are extremely rare in China and it is even rarer for convictions to be overturned.

Twenty-six officials were given "administrative penalties, including admonitions and record of demerit", Xinhua said citing an official statement on Sunday.

Feng Zhiming, the other penalised official, was suspected of other crimes related to his job and was being investigated, according to the report.

The murder happened during an anti-crime drive and detectives in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region admitted being under pressure to secure a conviction. The use of force to get confessions is thought to be widespread in the country.

Huugjilt's parents were given 30,000 yuan ($4850; £3080) as an expression of the court's sympathy, when the conviction was overturned.

The inevitability of error

Source: Malay Mail Online (12 December 2015)

http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/the-inevitability-of-error

OPINION, Dec 12 — Many have forgotten the wrongful conviction of S. Karthigesu who was charged, tried and convicted for the murder of Jean Perera Sinnappa which took place in 1979. Karthigesu was the only suspect.

The murder trial took 38 days. The main prosecution witness was Bhandulananda Jayatilake. He testified that he witnessed Karthigesu exclaimed that Jean “did not deserve to live”. The trial Judge regarded these words as an incriminating outburst. No evidence was ever found to directly identify the killer. The murder weapon was also never discovered despite the police best efforts.

Karthigesu was given a mandatory death sentence by the trial Judge. He appealed to the Federal Court against his conviction and death sentence. Four days after Karthigesu’s conviction, Jayatilake who was the main prosecution witness came forward. He confessed that he had lied. He did not witness the alleged incriminating outburst implicating Karthigesu.

According to the judgment of the Court, he had been asked to lie in order to secure Karthigesu’s conviction.

The Federal Court set aside Karthigesu’s conviction and mandatory death sentence. Jayatilake was then convicted of perjury and was sent to prison for 10 years.

After having been on the death row for more than two years, Karthigesu was freed. He was indeed very lucky. Many others before and after him may have not been so lucky. Karthigesu was a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The critical lesson from Jean’s case is that the legal system was unable to uncover the witness’ dishonesty. The trial Judge believed the perjured evidence given by Jayatilake.

Our criminal justice system is clearly not perfect and is susceptible to errors. Errors can be deliberate as well as unintentional. Even an honest witness can be mistaken.

Capital punishment has no place in a society that values and respects human lives. Article 5(1) of our Federal Constitution specifically mandates the Government to protect the citizens’ right to life.

The recent announcement by the government through its de facto law minister, Honourable Nancy Shukri that the government will be tabling an amendment to the law to abolish mandatory death sentence in relation to drugs offences is a move in the right direction.

The decision by the government to abolish the mandatory death sentence for drugs offences is a clear recognition that the mandatory death regime does not act as a deterrent.

A startling revelation was made by Tun Hanif Omar, the former Inspector-General of Police, about the introduction of the mandatory death sentence for drugs offences at a recent seminar on 17 November 2015 which was attended by Members of Parliament from both sides of the political divide.

According to Tun Hanif, the government’s decision in 1983 to impose the mandatory death sentence for drugs offences was made after a conversation between former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman regarding the disparity in the imposition of the death sentence for drug offences.

Tun Mahathir was told that two High Court judges had openly declared that they would not impose the death sentence for drug related offences.

The government then decided to standardise the inconsistent punishments and “experimented” with the introduction of the mandatory death sentence regime for drug offences.

If this is the case, the mandatory death sentence appears to have been introduced arbitrarily and without any empirical evidence that would support the belief that it would reduce the commission of drug offences.

This “experiment” failed miserably. In March 2012, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, who was then the home minister, admitted in Parliament that the introduction of the mandatory death sentence in 1983 had not reduced drug-related offences.

He said that the drug trafficking arrests had in fact increased. He revealed that there were 2,999 arrests for drug trafficking offences in 2009 and these arrests went up to 3,845 in 2011. This failed “experiment” clearly points to one conclusion — a mandatory death sentence is not an effective deterrent for drug offences.

Malaysia is one of 13 countries in the world that still retains the mandatory death sentence. We currently have 10 offences with mandatory death sentences in force. The effect of a mandatory death sentence is that upon a guilty verdict, the only punishment available to be meted out is death.

The problem with a mandatory death sentence is that the Judge does not have any discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of the convicted person.

The judge is prevented from taking into account any aggravating and/or mitigating factors available to the convicted person when deciding on the suitable punishment to be meted out against the convicted person.

This limitation means that the sentence of death is arbitrary since it does not take into account the varying degrees or types of culpability.

International law states that the mandatory death sentence is contrary to the right to life of each individual as it is arbitrary and has also been deemed to be disproportionate thus violating the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The government has a positive obligation to protect life as mandated by our Federal Constitution.

Under international law a judge should be given the discretion to mete out the appropriate sentence in capital punishment cases.

Many courts in the Commonwealth including, India, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Uganda have declared the mandatory death penalty as unconstitutional.

The often quoted reason for not abolishing the mandatory death sentence is the notion that the public demands such a harsh punishment.

A public opinion survey was carried out in Malaysia in 2013 by Roger Hood, Professor Emeritus of Criminology at the University of Oxford.

The survey results showed that there was very little public support for the law which requires that a mandatory death penalty should be imposed on all persons convicted for murder, trafficking of drugs and for certain non-fatal firearms offences.

We are in fact ready for change. With the support of the Malaysian public, the Government must now act to abolish the mandatory death sentence for all crimes.

Ultimately, the government should work towards progressively abolishing capital punishment for all offences.

We should not wait to admit to the imperfection of our criminal justice system. There is always a risk that we may become the victim of a miscarriage of justice ourselves.

By then, it would be too late. The truth is that you can only protect your own life in this world by protecting the lives of others.

*Abdul Rashid Ismail is the immediate past president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM).

Court acquits man after controversial death penalty case

Source: Asia One (2 September 2015)

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/court-acquits-man-after-controversial-death-penalty-case

TAIPEI, Taiwan - A defendant in a controversial death penalty case was declared innocent after his ninth appeal yesterday, exactly 20 years after his alleged crime.

Hsu Tzu-chiang is one of three men sentenced to death in 2000 for the murder of a real estate businessman on Sept. 1, 1995.

Activists and Hsu's lawyers criticised the ruling on grounds that the sentence had been based on the confessions of his co-defendants.

The Taiwan High Court yesterday overturned Hsu's seven death sentences and two life sentences, declaring him not guilty.

The case had already gone through eight appeals on repeated retrials.

Hsu, in disbelief, turned to a nearby friend after the announcement and asked, "Is it not guilty?" Upon confirming the verdict, the defendant embraced his tearful mother.

"I have waited for 20 years," he said to a crowd of supporters waiting outside the high court. The sentence can still be appealed.

Hsu and two other men were sentenced to death for the alleged murder of real-estate businessman Huang Chun-shu in 1995.

The victim was kidnapped outside his home; after his murder, his disfigured body was abandoned in New Taipei City, and then Taipei County.

During the trial, defendants Huang Chun-chi and Chen Yi-lung were sentenced based on forensic evidence, while Hsu was convicted based on their testimony.

A fourth defendant had escaped to Thailand, where he died.

Activists have criticised Hsu's sentence and said that there was security footage proving he was elsewhere during the events.

The Judicial Reform Foundation has called the case deeply flawed, saying it demonstrates the need to implement a jury system in Taiwan to reduce judicial bias.

After the initial sentencing, one of the two defendants said he had accused Hsu as a way of getting revenge and that Hsu was innocent.

In 2001, Taiwan's Control Yuan released a report on Hsu's conviction that condemned the sentencing.

Hsu's case is one of the longest-running murder cases in Taiwan's history, and his acquittal falls exactly 20 years after the alleged murder. Huang Chun-chi and Chen Yi-lung remain on death row.

China claims one tenth overturned

China: 10 percent of death sentences overturned
Fri, Nov 26, 2010
From: China Daily/Asia News Network

Beijing - China's top court has overturned, on average, 10 percent of all death sentences nationwide since 2007 when it took back the right of final review from lower courts, a senior court official said.

Hu Yunteng, head of the research department under the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said regaining the review "played an obvious role" in reducing the number of executions.

"It has ensured that the death penalty can only be applied for the most serious crimes," he told China Daily.

But Hu declined to specify the number of death sentences carried out each year.

In 1981, to tackle rising crime, the highest court granted provincial courts the authority to pass death sentences.

The practice, widely criticized following reports of miscarriages of justice, ended on Jan 1, 2007, when the SPC was again given the sole power to review and ratify death sentences.

Hu said death sentences were overturned mostly for lack of evidence, procedural flaws or for an inappropriate penalty.

"The SPC will not tolerate any mistakes regarding evidence or procedure and will thoroughly investigate" questionable judgments, he said, adding that the quality of local courts' handling of death penalty cases is improving.

"We must make sure the use of the death sentence is accurate and free of mistakes to respect and protect the convicts and their rights."

Earlier, Zhang Jun, SPC vice-president, told judicial departments to only impose a death penalty for the most heinous crimes.

The SPC also increased its criminal tribunals from two to five to better examine all death sentences passed, Hu said.

The SPC also ordered that all cases that carried a possible death penalty must be heard at a court session, with the defendant or defendants in attendance, he added.

The move "prevents unjust, false or invalid cases on the one hand and, on the other hand, respects the rights of defendants", he said.

About 90 percent of death sentences passed are for serious crimes ranging from intentional homicide, robbery, serious injury, rape, drug trafficking to kidnapping, according to Hu.

In August, the National People's Congress, the top legislature, dropped the death penalty for 13 economy related, non-violent crimes in the latest amendment to the country's Criminal Law.

Hu said the SPC "strongly supports" the move as it has sent "a positive signal for strictly controlling the imposition of a death penalty".

Despite these moves, he said, the final review still faces challenges, including the use of torture as well as poor standards among some rural judges.

In one of the country's most notorious forced-confession cases, Zhao Zuohai, after serving 11 years in prison, was released in early May after the man he was alleged to have murdered turned up alive.

The Henan farmer said the police tortured him into making a confession.

Zhao Bingzhi, head of the criminal law research committee under the China Law Society, said it's essential for the SPC to classify and summarize cases where the death penalty has been overturned and then release them to guide lower courts.

"What's more, the SPC should go beyond only examining evidence, and establish rules to better define serious crimes where the death penalty is applicable to ensure its appropriate use," he said.

-China Daily/Asia News Network

Execution wrong - even for terrorists

Comment by Tim Goodwin
This story was first published on ABC Australia's Unleashed. Read the debate on the story here.

After more than two years of delays and legal brinkmanship, it seems it is finally going to happen. In the coming days Indonesian firing squads will shoot the three men sentenced to death for organising the October 2002 Bali bombing. The bureaucratic wheels are turning to provide the time, the place, the personnel, the training, the equipment and the legal authority to kill three people.

Many in Australia and Indonesia will applaud the executions, looking to the firing squads to deliver revenge and a measure of emotional release. Some journalists will reach for that dubious cliche and ask whether the victims now have 'closure'. And their deaths will bring an end to the stream of heartless and absurd statements from the men who gained an aura of macabre celebrity from the media attention.

Undeniably these three men are criminals, whose actions had a shattering impact on the hundreds of people killed or injured and the thousands who cared for them. Undeniably the bombers deserve harsh punishment, both to protect society from what they may do again, given the chance, and to signal a collective outrage at their crimes. None of that is at issue.

But there are unsettling questions in the countdown to the executions. Is it ever acceptable for a government to kill convicted criminals in the name of society as a whole? Or is it justified in this case?

Here's an answer: execution is never justified. The death penalty is never an appropriate response to serious crime. This includes the Bali bombers. It is possible to condemn their crimes while also believing they should not be killed by the state.

Even if their executions deliver a sense of revenge, they represent a step that no government has the right to take. No government should carry out the coldly planned and delivered act of putting a human being to death in the name of justice. The enormity and the horror of these people's crimes will never be wiped away by their deaths, and the promise they destroyed can never be returned.

Over the past 30 years, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as a human rights issue. Under the key international human rights charters, every individual has certain basic rights such as the right not to be tortured and the right to life. In the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person". They are not granted by our parents, our families, our race or the society around us. This is why murder is, among other things, a violation of human rights.

Because no government grants us these rights, no government has the power to take them away. Only where there is a direct or immediate threat to life are police, soldiers or individual citizens permitted to use lethal force. An overwhelming majority of countries have come to agree the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by a government.

The legitimacy of modern government rests on protecting their citizens, and ensuring the conditions for people to achieve their potential. It used to be argued that executions were necessary to protect communities from criminals and deter further crime. Both of these arguments are now threadbare, with modern prisons offering physical security and mounting evidence that the severest punishment does not deliver a greater level of deterrence against crime.

When it is applied to murder, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the death penalty which destroys it as a symbol of a society's values. It is not possible for a government to demonstrate the supreme worth of human life by killing. Some claim the very seriousness of killing proves the importance of the innocent life the state is acting to avenge. But far from cancelling out the original crime, it instead places the state in the position of mimicking the killer's original decision that a particular person should no longer live.

The ethical dimensions of execution also need to be tested against the reality of death penalty systems around the world. It is easy to imagine the unremorseful criminal, tried in a perfect justice system where execution sends an unmistakeable signal to would-be criminals that they will receive the same punishment if they similarly offend. This situation does not exist anywhere in the world.

The firing squad and the scaffold are symbols of absolute state power, but also of infallible state power, and there is no such thing as an infallible justice system. There are cases where the defendant is certainly guilty, including the Bali bombing conspirators. However many cases are far from certain, which introduces the very real risk of error -- even the best justice systems in the world make mistakes. To accept that some people will be killed as a result of mistaken convictions is to accept that innocent people will inevitably die.

For a penalty that is supposed to deliver justice using the ultimate and irreversible sanction, this reality is simply unacceptable.

Even in the case of the guilty, it is not possible to reserve execution for offenders who have expressed no remorse for their actions. Showing mercy or allowing a prisoner to live is not a reward for their remorse. It is a statement about who we are, and what we value as a society.

The death penalty is ultimately about politics more than criminal justice. For all the talk of it providing greater deterrence against crime (which can't be demonstrated) or satisfying public opinion (when few governments allow a free and informed debate), it is used to show a government's determination to stand against the threat of personal crime. It is retained by countries that no longer carry out executions, because it sends all the right political signals to keep it on the books. In countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia it is also a very useful means of maintaining control over the broader population. It is no accident these countries are among the few that still carry out public executions.

We will wake up one morning soon to hear the three Bali bombers have been shot during the night. The sentences will have been carried out. There will be some grim satisfaction. Two governments will have proclaimed their resistance to terrorism. Three more people will be dead. And nothing else will have changed.

Australia: Hanged man pardoned after 86 years

[Please note: long post]
The Victorian Government today announced it had pardoned Colin Campbell Ross (pictured), 86 years after he was hanged for the murder of a Melbourne schoolgirl.

Nell Alma Tirtschke was murdered on New Year's Eve 1921, and her naked body dumped in the dead-end Gun Alley, off Little Collins Street in Melbourne.

Ross, the 28 year-old owner of a wine saloon in nearby Eastern Arcade, always strenuously maintained his innocence. He was executed at Old Melbourne Gaol in April 1922, less than four months after the murder.

The 12 year-old girl was running errands for her aunt that afternoon, but the prosecution claimed in court that Alma was instead inside the saloon, where Ross plied her with wine before raping and strangling her in a back room. Witnesses identified him as the man who returned later that night to dump her body in the alley.

He was convicted on the basis of that testimony, a "confession" made to a fellow prisoner and the crucial "match" of hairs on a blanket found at his house with hair taken from the dead girl's head.
Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls said today the pardon followed a joint petition for mercy made by the families of Ross and Alma Tirtschke in October 2005.

The petition was signed by Ross' niece, Betty Everett, and Alma Tirtschke's niece, Bettye Arthur. It drew on evidence uncovered by a researcher who wrote a book about the case, which came to be known as the 'Gun Alley' murder.

Kevin Morgan's book Gun Alley: Murder, Lies and the Failure of Justice was based on 15 years of research into the case.

First review of its kind
In what is thought to be an Australian legal first, Hulls referred the application to the trial division of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which convened a panel of judges to examine the case and provide an opinion to the Attorney-General.

The three judges came to the conclusion in December 2007 that "that there has been a miscarriage of justice".

In the course of his research, Morgan tracked down the hair samples -- the only physical evidence linking Ross to the crime -- and had them examined using modern scientific analysis.

That analysis concluded the two hair samples were not from the same person.

At the time of the trial, the Crown had refused to make the samples available for testing by the defence.

Morgan also found that the jailhouse confession was reported by a prisoner with a record of perjury, a fact not disclosed to the jury.

Defence witnesses who placed Ross on a tram going home at the time of the murder were discounted at the trial.

Lifting the fear
According to a report in The Age newspaper, the pardon has taken an enormous weight from the descendents of both Alma Tirtschke and the man killed to punish her murder.

Morgan said: "A big stain on the legal system has finally been expunged, and a shadow on two Australian families has also been lifted.

"That justice has finally been done for the Ross and Tirtschke families after 86 years is a tremendous outcome."

The girl's niece, Bettye Arthur, said: "It is a tragedy for everybody that the actual perpetrator was not caught, and an innocent man lost his life."

She said her mother, Alma's younger sister, had been deeply affected by the murder.

"The actual pardon has also helped restore the reputation of Alma, because it shows that she didn't enter the wine bar as was said in the trial. She was a good girl," Mrs Arthur said.

Colin Ross' niece Betty Everett, said the pardon took the fear and doubt out of the family secret in the shadow of which she had grown up.

"I had lived with this fear and doubt for most of my life, the more so as I began to have children, that perhaps I carried the genes of a murderer," she said.

"That shadow has gone."

Attorney-General Hulls acknowledged the families' campaign for the pardon.

"The pardon is a tribute to the families of Colin Campbell Ross and Alma Tirtschke for their persistence," he said.

"These families have come together to right a historical wrong.

"I trust the pardon will provide some relief from the suffering that this terrible human tragedy has caused the Ross and Tirtschke families, and allow these wounds to heal."

"A retrial is not possible"
While the pardon is a recognition that Ross almost certainly did not kill the girl, the Attorney-General said in a statement issued today that a pardon is "not the same thing as a declaration of innocence".

"In the circumstances of the case a re-trial is not possible," Hulls said.

"A pardon is recorded against the conviction in recognition that the State forgives the legal consequences of the crime.

"The serious doubts about Mr Ross' conviction underscore why this government abhors the death penalty, which was formally abolished in Victoria in 1975."

Today Hulls presented both families with framed letters of pardon signed by the Governor.

"This is a tragic case where a miscarriage of justice resulted in a man being hanged," Hulls told The Age newspaper.

"May be others"
Victorian Premier John Brumby said science had virtually exonerated Ross, but there may be other cases of innocent people hanged in the state's history.

"Science in particular I think has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have committed that crime."

According to a report on ABC Radio, the Premier said the case showed how far forensic technology had come, and it reinforced Victoria's decision to formally abolish the death penalty in 1975.

Premier Brumby told Fairfax Radio it was not inconceivable there could be other instances of people being executed for crimes they didn't commit.

"If you went back through every single case and you had the evidence still around to scientifically test, forensically test, there may well be some other cases," he said.

AAP said he added the case showed the law was not perfect and mistakes could happen.

"It might only be one mistake in a hundred but in that one case in a hundred, the damage, obviously, that you do to the individual is irredeemable - you take their life, so it's a very strong argument against capital punishment," he said.

'A miscarriage of justice'
Attorney-General Hulls referred the case to the trial division of the Supreme Court of Victoria in October 2006, pointing to the petition's claim that fresh evidence had been uncovered, essentially consisting of "new forensic evidence and new character evidence about one of the witnesses".

He asked the court to determine "whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Mr Ross in the light of evidence now available".

Given the importance of the hair evidence, both as circumstantial evidence and to the interpretation of the evidence from key prosecution and defence witnesses, the Supreme Court said "we are driven to the conclusion that there has been a miscarriage of justice as that concept is applied by the appellate courts".

The court noted that the finding of a miscarriage would not automatically lead to an acquittal. Rather, in this sort of case it would lead to a conviction being quashed and a retrial ordered.

Since a retrial was not possible, the conviction could be referred to the Court of Appeal or the Attorney-General could independently grant a pardon.

The pardon was reportedly signed by the Governor of Victoria on Friday.

Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings

Japan hanged four death row prisoners on Thursday this week (10 April), marking a sharp increase in the rate of hangings in the past two years.

The latest executions bring to ten the number of death warrants approved by Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama. He has approved in four months the same number of hangings his predecessor approved in 11 months.

The justice ministry confirmed the identity of the four men, only the third time it had done so. They were Katsuyoshi Nakamoto, 64, Masaharu Nakamura, 61, Masahito Sakamoto, 41, and Kaoru Okashita, 61.

Nakamoto and Nakamura were hanged in Osaka, and Sakamoto and Okashita in Tokyo.

The BBC online reported that Hatoyama dismissed concerns about the increase in executions.

"I have not paid any attention to the interval [since February's executions]," he told reporters.

"As justice minister, I am simply carrying out the demands of the law."

As well as the rate of executions increasing, it also appears the minister is moving to implement faster executions after a death sentence is confirmed, something he called for in September 2007.

The Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported three of the four men executed were hanged within four years of their death sentences being finalised. During the previous decade, the average wait was about eight years.

Human rights concern
Human rights organisation Amnesty International said it deeply regretted the latest executions, and expressed its alarm at the current rate of hangings.

The organisation's Japan chapter condemned the executions and questioned the guilt of three of the men hanged.

"It is unforgivable that the executions were again conducted secretly," said spokesperson Makoto Teranaka, according to a report by the AFP newsagency.

"Observing the current pace of executions, we can't help but predict a huge number of executions this year, which goes totally against the world trend of abolishing capital punishment and is a shame on Japan."

The organisation said two of the executed prisoners were acquitted in early trials, and a third continued to insist on his innocence. It said the fourth may have been mentally ill.

Concerns about the pace of executions were echoed in a statement issued by Amnesty International in London.

"We are extremely concerned about the increased number of executions,” the statement said.

"We call on the Japanese government to adopt an immediate moratorium on executions in accordance with last year's UN resolution."

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition, by a majority of 104 votes to 54.

A poet silenced
According to the AFP report, the four executed this week included a poet who wrote traditional poetry expressing remorse for the two murders for which he was convicted.

Kaoru Okashita, who also used the surname Akinaga, wrote traditional tanka poetry on death row.

The head of a tanka club who published Okashita's poetry said he regularly sent her poems and she had only just sent back the latest proof-read verse.

"He once told me he hoped to live until next year when our group's tanka anthology is published. But his wish wasn't realised," Keiko Mitsumoto said.

"His poetry was very, very gentle and even offered solace and encouragement to me. I could hardly believe he would commit murder.

"He said he feared the day would suddenly come when the footsteps of a guard would stop in front of his cell to announce his execution.

"He seemed prepared for that, though, along with not meeting those close to him for a final farewell."

Related stories:
Japan: Sixteen hanged in thirteen months -- 04 February, 2008
Japan finally names three executed -- 9 December, 2007
Minister wants ‘tranquil’ killing: Japan -- 29 October, 2007
Japan: New minister will approve hangings -- 4 September, 2007
Japan executed mentally ill man -- 26 August, 2007
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006

Life Watch to save Taiwan's innocent from death

The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) has launched the "Life Watch" project in an effort to prevent the execution of innocent people, according to The Taipei Times.

The organisation has called on individuals and members of the public to join the project, which was inspired by the Innocence Project in the USA, to scrutinise the convictions of people sentenced to death.

TAEDP said if US research was applied in Taiwan, about 34 people could have been wrongly executed between 1955 and 1992.

US figures suggested the courts have reached an incorrect verdict in 7 per cent of cases where the death penalty was imposed.

Research published by Taiwan's Cabinet-level Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) in 1994 showed a total of 482 Taiwanese prisoners were executed in 1955-1992.

The Taipei Times said the "RDEC publication shows that most of the 482 executed persons were drawn from the lower-ranks of society, being unemployed or low-income workers, poorly educated, or young, first-time offenders".

The Life Watch project is co-sponsored by human rights, legal reform and religious organisations.

Related stories:
Taiwan 'improving' but call for abolition -- 11 October, 2007
Torment on Taiwan's death row -- 15 May, 2007
Taiwan limits mandatory penalties -- 29 January, 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007 -- 12 January, 2007
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December, 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February, 2006

'Ryan was innocent': lawyer

In our piece on the 40th anniversary of Ronald Ryan's hanging, we noted that his lawyer had always claimed he was innocent, a view rejected again last week by his biographer.

Mike Richards, author of The Hanged Man: The Life and Death of Ronald Ryan, said the condemned man confessed to the Pentridge prison governor the night before he was executed.

A reader has drawn our attention to a 2002 letter by defence barrister Phillip Opas detailing the final steps in his efforts to save his client's life

"I will go to my grave firmly of the opinion that Ronald Ryan did not commit murder," he wrote.

"I refuse to believe that at any time he told anyone that he did. When all hope of a reprieve had gone and he had decided that he might as well declare his guilt (if that was the fact) there are two people whom I believe he would have told and they were Father Brosnan and me.

"Father Brosnan and I have formed a lifelong friendship since the hanging, and Father has told me that Ryan never made any admission of guilt to him," Opas wrote.

He said Ryan "always vehemently denied" that he had shot and killed prison warder George Hodson.

While he planned a final appeal to the Privy Council, he believed it would ultimately fail but it would buy "time to create a groundswell of public opinion that would prevent the government from carrying out its declared intention of executing him".

According to Opus, Ryan replied: "We've all got to go some time, but I don't want to go this way for something I didn't do."

"Then he smiled and added, "You know, mate, we're playing time on. If you don't kick a goal soon, we're going to lose this match," Opus wrote.

It was the last time he saw his client.

Contesting the fatal shot
In the letter, Opus outlined the basis for his opinion that "not only did he not fire a shot, but that he could not have fired the shot that killed the warder".

It detailed facts which Dr Opas said "could neither lie nor be mistaken", including:

• witnesses claiming to have seen Ryan's shoulder jerk back and smoke coming from the barrel of the gun, when in fact that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges
• the lack of any forensic evidence that the gun was ever fired when it was in Ryan's possession
• a call Opas received a few years after the hanging, claiming that a prison officer had found the ninth round from Ryan's gun, which the caller claimed was dropped in the tower. The anonymous caller said the prison officer was forced by superiors to change his statement to omit all reference to the bullets, after he was threatened with a charge of "conspiring with the prisoners to help the escape"
• calculations that Ryan could not have shot Hodson at the downwards angle indicated by his entry and exit wounds, contrasted with
• statements that another prisoner officer had taken aim at Ryan while standing on a low stone wall in front of the jail, but pulled the gun up as he fired, a move which could have seen Hodson shot from the correct angle.

Dr Opas concluded: "Ryan was the unfortunate victim of the Premier's determination to have a hanging."

"I will always be troubled by the feeling that Ryan should have been acquitted and that I must have been inadequate for the task of defending him," he wrote.

Letter published: Victorian Bar News, Issue No: 122, Spring Edition 2002, 1/09/2002

(Anon, thanks for the tip.)