There is no humane way to execute

Following a news item posted below concerning a failed execution in Ohio, USA:
Ohio plans execution method untried on prisoners
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio announced plans to switch from the usual three-drug cocktail used to execute inmates to a one-drug method which has never been tried on prisoners.
Under the three-drug method, the first drug makes the prisoner unconscious, the second paralyzes him and the third stops his heart — a process that death penalty opponents argue is excruciatingly painful if the first drug doesn't work.
The single-drug technique amounts to an overdose of anesthesia.
Death penalty opponents hailed the decision as making executions more humane but expressed reservations about using such an untested method. The same drug is commonly used to euthanize pets and in some parts of Europe has been used in assisted suicides.
Richard Dieter, director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, noted the new practice would essentially be an experiment performed on inmates.
"They're human subjects and they're not willingly part of this," Dieter said. "This is experimenting with the unknown, and that always raises concerns."
The inmates who are going to be executed could challenge the constitutionality of what's being proposed in Ohio.

The lesson for Thailand is that there is no humane way to kill people

Open Letter to Prime Minister

On 10th October, World Day for Abolition of the Death Penalty, five human rights organizations submitted the following letter to the Prime Minister:

จดหมายเปิดผนึกถึง ฯพณฯ นายกรัฐมนตรี

10 ตุลาคม 2552

เรื่อง การคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิต

เรียน ฯพณฯ นายกรัฐมนตรี

ในนามขององค์กรพัฒนาเอกชนด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน ที่ทำงานด้านสิทธิมนุษยชนในประเทศไทย ขอแสดงความเสียใจเป็นอย่างยิ่งที่รัฐบาลไทยนำโทษประหารชีวิตกลับมาใช้อีกครั้ง ซึ่งก่อนหน้านี้ประเทศไทยมีความพยายามที่จะละเว้นโทษประหารนี้ไปตั้งแต่ปี 2546 แต่เมื่อวันที่ 24 สิงหาคม ที่ผ่านมา นายบัณฑิต เจริญวานิชและนายจิรวัฒน์ พุ่มพฤกษ์ ผู้ต้องโทษที่รอการประหารกลับถูกประหารชีวิตโดยไม่มีการบอกกล่าวแก่ตัวผู้ต้องขังและครอบครัวให้ทราบล่วงหน้า

ในฐานะองค์กรพัฒนาเอกชนด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน เราขอประณามการกระทำของรัฐบาลในการกระทำดังกล่าว ซึ่ง ในช่วงระยะเวลาหกปีที่สังคมไทยได้มีความพยายามเปลี่ยนแปลงทัศนคติเกี่ยวกับการใช้โทษประหารชีวิต และขอคัดค้านการใช้โทษประหารชีวิต เพื่อปกป้องสิทธิมนุษยชน โดยมีเหตุผลดังต่อไปนี้

1. ปัจจุบันนานาอารยประเทศมีความตระหนักเพิ่มมากขึ้นว่าสิทธิในการมีชีวิตอยู่เป็นสิทธิมนุษยชนพื้นฐานขั้นต่ำสุด ซึ่งที่ผ่านมาประเทศส่วนใหญ่ทั่วโลก (ปัจจุบัน134ประเทศ)ได้ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตไปแล้ว โดยยึดถือหลักการที่ว่า ไม่มีผู้ใดสามารถทำลายชีวิตของใครได้ หรือ ไม่มีผู้ใดมีอำนาจที่จะทำลายชีวิตของผู้ใดได้

เราจึงขอถามท่านว่าเหตุใดประเทศไทยจึงยังคงประหารชีวิตประชาชนของตนเอง การที่รัฐบาลของท่านเคยแสดงเจตจำนงที่จะเคารพสิทธิมนุษยชนอันเป็นหลักประกันหนึ่งในระบอบประชาธิปไตยแต่เหตุใดในทางปฏิบัติกลับตรงกันข้ามกับเจตจำนงดังกล่าว เหตุใดหลักธรรมคำสอนของพุทธศาสนาซึ่งหล่อหลอมวัฒนธรรมไทยไม่ได้นำไปสู่การเคารพชีวิตทุกชีวิตและไม่นำมาสู่การยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตได้เลย ความจริงความเข้าใจของศาสนาพุทธไม่ต่างจากศาสนาอิสลามซึ่งพระอัลเลาะห์ผู้สง่างามและมีเมตตากรุณา ได้แสดงเจตนาในหลักการที่สอดคล้องกันกับพุทธ คือหากสามารถที่จะให้อภัยผู้กระทำผิดและสร้างความปรองดองกันได้ ก็ควรจะทำ(อัลกุรอาน 42: 40-43)

ความปรารถนาให้ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตของผู้คนทั่วโลกปรากฏเป็นที่ประจักษ์จากผลการลงมติในที่ประชุมสมัชชาสหประชาชาติเมื่อวันที่ 8 ธันวาคม พ.ศ.2550 และอีกครั้งในปี 2551 โดยมีมติให้ทุกประเทศทั่วโลกงดเว้นโทษประหารชีวิตเพื่อเป็นหนทางนำไปสู่การยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตในที่สุด ถึงแม้มติดังกล่าวไม่ได้เป็นข้อบังคับแต่กลับส่งผลเชิงศีลธรรมอย่างมหาศาล (มติที่ 620149 ว่าด้วยการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต)

2. การประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังคดียาเสพติดเมื่อวันที่ 24 สิงหาคมที่ผ่านมาส่งผลต่อเนื่องกับผู้ต้องหาคดียาเสพติดรายอื่นๆ ตามรายงานกติการะหว่างประเทศว่าด้วยสิทธิพลเมืองและสิทธิทางการเมืองของสหประชาชาติระบุว่า ความผิดข้อหาเกี่ยวกับยาเสพติดไม่ถือเป็นความผิดให้ต้องโทษประหารชีวิต รัฐบาลไทยในฐานะภาคีของกติกาดังกล่าวไม่สามารถเพิกเฉยได้ เนื่องจากคำสั่งให้ประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังทั้งสองรายนี้จำเป็นต้องผ่านกระทรวงยุติธรรม และปลัดกระทรวงยุติธรรมคนปัจจุบันได้เข้าร่วมในที่ประชุมรายงานดังกล่าว ณ กรุงเจนีวาด้วย (CCPR/CO/84/THA)

3. การประหารชีวิตผู้ต้องขังทั้งสองรายโดยแจ้งให้ทราบเพียงหนึ่งชั่วโมงล่วงหน้า ซึ่งถือเป็นการกระทำที่น่ารังเกียจและไร้มนุษยธรรมอย่างสิ้นเชิง ผู้ต้องขังถูกปฏิเสธที่จะมีโอกาสเตรียมตัวก่อนถูกประหาร มิได้พบครอบครัวและญาติพี่น้อง ทำธุระส่วนตัวและอบรมสั่งเสียบุตร ความไร้มนุษยธรรมยังขยายไปถึงครอบครัวที่ไม่มีโอกาสได้พบหน้าและเอ่ยคำร่ำลาเป็นครั้งสุดท้าย

4. ความอยุติธรรมดังกล่าวยังส่งผลถึงผู้ต้องขังรายอื่นๆ ที่ต้องอยู่อย่างหวาดผวานับจากนี้ไป โดยที่ไม่สามารถรู้ได้เลยว่าชั่วโมงสุดท้ายของชีวิตจะมาถึงเมื่อใด

5. นอกจากนั้นคำสั่งประหารชีวิตที่ไม่โปร่งใส จากเบาะแสข่าวว่า เป็นเพราะผู้ต้องขังทั้งสอยังคงพัวพันกับการค้ายาเสพติดขณะอยู่ในเรือนจำ หาก เบาะแสดังกล่าวมีมูลความเป็นจริง พวกเขาควรเข้าสู่กระบวนการยุติธรรมเพื่อให้มีการพิสูจน์ความผิดต่อไป ทั้งนี้ผู้ต้องขังที่ต้องโทษประหารชีวิตทุกคนย่อมมีสิทธิที่จะได้รับการสันนิษฐานเบื้องต้นว่าเป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์จนกว่าศาลจะพิพากษาว่ากระทำผิดจริง และไม่มีใครสามารถถูกทำให้จบชีวิตได้โดยเหตุจากเบาะแสที่ไม่มีข้อพิสูจน์ได้

กล่าวโดยสรุป การประหารชีวิตนั้น เป็นการละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนที่ร้ายแรงที่สุดที่ไม่สมควรเกิดขึ้นซ้ำแล้วซ้ำอีกในสังคมใดๆ และพวกเราในฐานะองค์กรด้านสิทธิมนุษยชนร้องขอให้ประเทศไทยได้ไตร่ตรองถึงพันธะสัญญาแห่งการเคารพสิทธิมนุษยชนที่พัฒนามาอย่างยาวนาน และการประกาศจุดยืนร่วมกับนานาอารยะประเทศ ในการปฏิบัติตามมาตรฐานที่ว่าโทษประหารชีวิตเป็นมาตรการอันป่าเถื่อน ถือเป็นการกระทำฆาตกรรม ที่ระบบยุติธรรมของประเทศที่พัฒนาแล้วโดยทั่วไป มิอาจสามารถยอมรับได้


ลงชื่อ ประธานกรรมการ
(ดร. แดนทอง บรีน)
สมาคมสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน(สสส.)

ลงชื่อ เลขาธิการ
( นายเมธา มาสขาว )
คณะกรรมการรณรงค์เพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชน(ครส.)

ลงชื่อ ผู้อำนวยการ
(นายบุญแทน ตันสุเทพวีรวงศ์)
ศูนย์ข้อมูลสิทธิมนุษยชนและสันติธรรม

ลงชื่อ ประธานมูลนิธิ
( นายสมชาย หอมลออ )
มูลนิธิผสานวัฒนธรรม

ลงชื่อ ผู้อำนวยการ
(นางสาวจันทร์จิรา จันทร์แผ่ว )
เครือข่ายนักกฏหมายสิทธิมนุษยชน


ลงชื่อ ประธาน
(นายโคทม อารียา)
มูลนิธิเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชนและการพัฒนา

(English translation)
Open letter to the Prime Minister

We, representatives of non-governmental organizations dedicated to the protection of human rights of the Thai people, are deeply saddened by the action of your Government in resuming executions after a six year hiatus. In December 2003 four persons were executed, after which a six year de facto moratorium on executions occurred. This period came to a sudden, unannounced, unexplained, and brutal end on 24th August last with the execution of Bundit Jaroenwanit and Jirawat Poompreuk.

We submit to your Government that in the last six years a large change in perspective regarding the death penalty has taken place, illustrating ever more clearly the contravention of human rights involved in resuming executions:
1. A realization that the Right to Life is the most basic of all human rights has grown stronger. The great majority of countries in the world (to date 134 countries) have ceased to apply Capital Punishment, convinced that human life is indeed inviolable.
We question why Thailand is continuing to put to death its own citizens. Do not the claimed respect for human rights of a democratically elected government recommend an opposite course of action? Does not the largely Buddhist ethic which inspires Thai culture not lead to a respect for all living things which would favour abolition? Indeed, such a Buddhist understanding finds resonance in the Muslim emphasis on the favour shown by Allah, most Gracious and Merciful, on those who forgive a mortal injury and make reconciliation (Koran 42: 40-43).
The wish of the nations of the world is revealed in the majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly on 8th December 2007, and repeated in 2008, recommending that all nations of the world progress to abolition of the death penalty, meanwhile observing a Moratorium on its application. While not mandatory, the measure has immense moral significance. (Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, Resolution 620149)
2. The executions of 24th August concerned persons condemned on drug charges. It was clearly pointed out to representatives of the Royal Thai Government on the occasion of the first report on compliance with the Covenant on Social and Political Rights that drug offences do not constitute crimes subject to the death penalty. The order to execute two prisoners for drug offenses must have passed through the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry cannot be ignorant of the fact that such a sanction cannot be justified in international law as a current Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry was present in Geneva during the submission. (CCPR/CO/84/THA)
3. The execution of the condemned prisoners with a one hour notice is a totally repugnant and inhumane act. The condemned were denied the opportunity to prepare for death, to take leave of their families and relatives, to arrange their affairs and instruct their children. The inhumanity extends to their families, who could not meet one last time with their family member, to hear their last wishes, and the disposal of their affairs.
4. Consider too the injustice done to other prisoners who must now live with the terror that every hour may be their final hour of life.
5. In the absence of transparency regarding the order to execute, rumour is rampant that the executed had again offended by drug dealing within the prison, thus justifying their execution. If there is truth in this accusation they should have been subject to further legal procedure; even in death, persons have a right to the presumption of innocence and not to be executed by appeal to rumour.

In conclusion, the executions are an outrage against human rights, which must not be repeated. Let Thailand read the signs of the times and take a stand with the majority of the nations of the world, renouncing for ever the barbarous and unnecessary practice of judicial murder, which masquerades as legalized Capital Punishment.



Signed on behalf of: by
Union for Civil Liberty Danthong Breen, Chairman


1. Campaign Committee for Human Rights (CCHR)
2. Peace and Human Rights Resource Center (PHRC)
3. Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF)
4. Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)
5. Human Rights Lawyers Association

A reply from the Prime Minister's Office is shown above. It acknowledges receipt of the letter and states that it has been passed on to the Ministry of Justice for consideration

Abominal Practice, Failed Execution

The El Pais weekend supplement prints the affidavit of the American death row inhabitant Romell Broom - who has now been granted a temporary reprieve following 18 failed attempts to administer him the lethal injection on 15 September. "(...) 15. After applying the towels, the nurse tried to access my veins, once in the middle of my left arm and three times more on the left. After the third attempt to access the veins, the nurse said the heroin had damaged my veins. That comment upset me because I have never used heroin and other drugs intravenously. I replied to the nurse that I never had used heroin.16. The nurse kept saying that the vein was there but could not get it. I tried to work helping to tie my own arm. A prison officer walked over, patted my hand to indicate that he also saw the vein, the nurse tried to help me locate it. 17. The chief enforcement officials said they would do another break and returned to tell me to relax. 18. Then I broke down. I began to mourn because I ached and my arms were swollen. The nurses were clicking needles into areas that were already swollen and bruised (.) 23. After a while, the director, Terry Collins, entered the room and told me they were going to suspend the execution. Collins said that he appreciated my cooperation and taking note of my attempts to help the team. He also expressed confidence in the team performance and professionalism. The director told me that Collins would call Governor Strickland to inform of the situation."

No Simple Matter

"Ultimately, every state should pause and consider that ending the life of a healthy man or woman is no simple matter and that even in the 21st century, executioners do not have their job down to anything like a science. No government should put people to death until it can show that the condemned person will not be racked with pain, catch on fire or prove so difficult to kill, as in Mr. Broom’s case, that the executioners are forced to try again another day."
Editorial, New York Times, October 3rd. Reference to the ‘horribly botched failed execution’ of Romell Broom in recent days. Thailand too has had it botched executions.

World Day against Death Penalty

10th October is the day when those protesting the death penalty throughout the world raise again the issue of this ancient barbaric curse in a minority of states. The majority of the world has already rejected this form of legalised murder, most recently Brazil, 139 countries in all. Thailand remains among the minority who still think it a right of the state to punish by death.
It is a morally repugnant punishment, it is useless and ineffective, and devalues the humanity of all of us. Let it end forever.
This year the objective of the World Abolition movement is to introduce abolition to the young, especially 13 to 18 year olds. It is the responsibility of this generation to see the end of Capital Punishment.

Execution Chamber in Bang Kwang Prison

Having at first refused to allow filming of the death chamber in Bang Kwang prison, it appears that the prison governor allowed Aljazeera to enter! A few years ago strong protest stopped the filming of an execution in Thailand. Present policy appears to promote the deterrent effect of executions by approaching as close as possible to the actual event of execution. The permission to film throws doubt on the aversion to execution expressed by the governor of the prison.
The compliance of the monk shown in the film, is typical of Buddhist monks in Thailand. While agreeing that the death penalty may 'theoretically' be against Buddhism teaching, they support Government policy on the death penalty.
See accompanying link in right hand column to "Bang Kwang, Execution Chamber"

Abolish the Death Penalty

UCL welcomes the following Editorial Opinion in the Bangkok Post
EDITORIAL
Death to the death penalty
Published: 22/09/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Late last month, on a quiet Monday afternoon, warders locked down Bang Khwang prison and prepared for two executions. A pair of convicted drug dealers, Bundit Charoenwanich, 45, and Jirawat Phumpruek, 52, were given one hour to contact their families, eat a last meal and make their peace in this world. Then they were taken to the execution room and injected with a series of drugs, the last of which ended their lives.
It was the first time in six years that authorities had ordered an actual execution. They should be the last such prisoners to die by execution. It is time that Parliament and the government end all use of the death penalty.
There are several problems with judicial executions, and no acceptable advantage. Carrying out a death sentence always risks the chance of killing the wrong person. Police, prosecutors and courts are dedicated and efficient, but not infallible. There have been plenty of wrongful convictions over the decades of Thai justice. If even one death sentence is wrongfully carried out, the death would be on the conscience of the nation. A wrongful conviction already takes months or years from an innocent person's life. Nothing could be worse than taking his or her life.
The main reason to abolish the death penalty for terrible crimes is that it brings no true result. Justice and punishment, in the form of imprisonment, parole or work programmes, are meant to prevent further crime. To an extent, they work. While many criminals continue their ways after release, others "go straight" so that they can live freely, without worry about being imprisoned. Crimes are prevented daily by the presence of police and the courts, as would-be robbers, speeders, thieves and others stick to the law in order to avoid punishment.
Study after study over the past 50 years has proved that the death sentence is no deterrent to the terrible crimes it punishes, such as drug trafficking, premeditated murder, violent and sexual abuse of children. While proponents of the death penalty argue facetiously that execution will assure that such criminals do not carry out their acts again, there are many ways to assure that. Indeed, no rational person would accept the end of the death penalty without parallel assurances that such violent acts against society can be punished by true life imprisonment, without early release.
Abolishing the death penalty in Thailand will be an unpopular act by the government, without doubt. Even in advanced Western countries, the majority of citizens always have opposed the abolition of the ultimate penalty. Yet such abolition around the world, from Canada to Cambodia, and from Austria to Australia, has never caused an upsurge of any kind in capital crimes. If anything, the threat of lengthy, even lifetime incarceration seems to be a greater deterrent than the former death penalty. Indeed, in recent cases in the United States, federal prisoners in so-called Supermax prisons have sued the government against their lifetime sentences under harsh, maximum security rules.
The only remaining argument in favour - that it provides an emotional release of sorts for victims and a horrified public - is unacceptable. Justice is not a form of vengeance, like some feel-good ending to a movie. Law and punishment are serious matters.
Last year, a majority of the United Nations General Assembly voted for the first time to oppose the death penalty. For now, the government should order a true moratorium banning more executions, pending a rewrite of the criminal code to ban the death penalty altogether.

Failed execution: after two hours of torture

In the state of Ohio, USA, an attempt on Tuesday, 15th September, to execute Romell Broom, a 53 year old condemned prisoner, failed. Those trying to carry out the execution tried to find a suitable vein to inject the poisons, in both arms and in one leg of the prisoner, but could not succeed, despite the cooperation of the condemned person who himself tried to indicate suitable locations for the lethal injection. Heavy bleeding and painful movement of the prisoner were observed, causing him to break down in tears. After two hours the attempt was abandoned. The execution is rescheduled in 10 days time. The defense lawyer will appeal a repeat attempt to execute Romell, citing the cruelty of the procedure.
The crime for which the death sentence was passed took place 25 years ago.

Resumption of Executions in Thailand

As Thailand resumes executions of those condemned to death we look again at our bed fellows among the countries retaining the death penalty:

1 China, the major executioner;
China today announced the launch of its national organ donation system, revealing for the first time the extent of its reliance on transplants from executed prisoners.
A senior health official disclosed just how dependent are China’s hospitals on the organs from criminals, whose kidneys, livers and hearts may be removed in ambulances that wait at the execution ground for doctors to pronounce a prisoner is dead.
Despite a 2007 regulation barring donations from people who are not related to or are emotionally connected to the transplant patient, the China Daily newspaper said 65 percent of organ donations come from death row.

2. Saudi Arabia;
The death penalty continued to be applied extensively after summary and secret trials. Defendants are rarely allowed legal assistance and can be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress or deception. As in previous years, capital punishment was used disproportionately against the poor, including many migrant workers from Asia and Africa, and women. In April, Amnesty International received secretly filmed footage of the public beheading of a Jordanian man convicted of drugs offences.
At least 102 men and women, 39 of them foreign nationals, were executed in 2008. Many were executed for non-violent offences, including drug offences, “sodomy”, blasphemy and apostasy. Most executions were held in public.
In January, the parents of Moeid bin Hussein Hakami, who was beheaded in 2007, took the unusual and brave step of lodging a complaint with the authorities about the execution of their son. He was aged 13 at the time of the crime and was 16 when beheaded. The parents were not told in advance of his execution and, according to reports, they were not informed of his place of burial.

3. Iran;
At least 346 people were executed, including at least eight juvenile offenders sentenced for crimes committed when they were under 18. The actual totals were likely to have been higher, as the authorities restricted reporting of executions. Executions were carried out for a wide range of offences, including murder, rape, drug smuggling and corruption. At least 133 juvenile offenders faced execution in contravention of international law. Many Iranian human rights defenders campaigned to end this practice. The authorities sought to justify executions for murder on the grounds that they were qesas (retribution), rather than ‘edam (execution), a distinction not recognized by international human rights law. In January, new legislation prescribed the death penalty or flogging for producing pornographic videos, and a proposal to prescribe the death penalty for “apostasy” was discussed in the parliament, but had not been enacted by the end of 2008.
In January, the Head of the Judiciary ordered an end to public executions in most cases and in August judicial officials said that executions by stoning had been suspended, although at least 10 people sentenced to die by stoning were still on death row at the end of the year and two men were executed by stoning in December.

4. USA
A typical case!
People should have no illusions about the brutal injustice of the death penalty after all of the exonerations in recent years from DNA evidence, but the case of Cameron Todd Willingham is still shocking.
Mr. Willingham was executed for setting a fire that killed his 2-year-old daughter and 1-year-old twins, but a fire expert hired by the State of Texas has issued a report casting enormous doubt on whether the fire was arson at all. The Willingham investigation, which is continuing, is further evidence that the criminal justice system is far too flawed to justify imposing a death penalty.
After the fire, investigators decided, based in large part on burn patterns on the house’s floors, that it was intentionally set. Prosecutors charged Mr. Willingham, who escaped from the burning home, with capital murder. Mr. Willingham protested his innocence until the day the state killed him by lethal injection in 2004.
The following year, Texas created the Forensic Science Commission to investigate charges of scientific mistakes or misconduct, and the panel began looking into the Willingham case. It commissioned Craig Beyler, a nationally recognized fire expert, to examine evidence.
Mr. Beyler issued a report last week that painted an ugly picture of what passes for expert scientific investigation and testimony in a capital case in Texas. The report found that the official inquiry into the Willingham fire did not meet prevailing scientific standards of the time, much less current ones.
The investigators “had poor understandings of fire science,” Mr. Beyler said, and their “methodologies did not comport with the scientific method.” He determined that the opinions of one main investigator were “nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation.”
The report concluded that a “finding of arson could not be sustained.” The Forensic Science Commission is now asking the state fire marshal’s office for its response. It anticipates issuing a final report next year.
The commission is to be commended for conducting this inquiry, but it is outrageous that Texas is conducting its careful, highly skilled investigation after Mr. Willingham has been executed, rather than before.

Are these the models for a country boasting a Buddhist culture, which teaches an inalienable respect for life, and the primacy of forgiveness and loving kindness?

Executions in Thailand after six year break

Drug dealers put to death: Bangkok Post

Writer: KING-OUA LAOHONG
Published: 25/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

Two convicted drug traffickers at Bang Khwang prison have been executed by lethal injection.

Bundit Jaroenwanit, 45, and Jirawat Poompreuk, 52, yesterday became the country's fifth and sixth people to be executed by lethal injection, which replaced death by shooting in 2003.

The atmosphere at Bang Khwang prison in Nonthaburi was subdued yesterday when the two learned they were about to die.

They were given 60 minutes to call or write to their loved ones. They were then offered a last meal and a chance to listen to a sermon from a monk invited from Wat Bang Praek Tai.

They were blindfolded and given flowers, candles and incense sticks before being taken to the execution chamber.

The two, their legs manacled, turned their faces towards the temple as they were laid out on beds.

They received three injections. The first was a sedative, the second a muscle relaxant and the third a drug that stops the heart beating.

See link "Bang Kwang 24th August"

แถลงการณ์

เรื่อง ขอคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิตเพราะขัดกับหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน

ตามที่ กรมราชทัณฑ์ ได้ดำเนินการประหารชีวิตนักโทษ 2 คน ในคดีความผิดเกี่ยวกับยาเสพติด เมื่อวันที่ 24 สิงหาคม ที่ผ่านมา นั้น สมาคมสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน (สสส.) มีความเห็นว่าเป็นการกระทำที่ผิดพลาดของประเทศไทยอีกครั้งหนึ่ง ด้วยเหตุผลดังต่อไปนี้

ประการแรก เนื่องมาจากว่า สมัชชาสหประชาชาติได้ลงมติโดยเสียงข้างมากส่วนใหญ่ เมื่อเดือนธันวาคม ปี 2550 และลงมติอีกครั้งเช่นเดียวกันในเดือนธันวาคม ปี 2551 ว่า ให้มีการใช้มาตรการชลอหรือขยายช่วงเวลาการประหารชีวิตออกไป เพื่อมิให้มีการลงโทษประหารชีวิตจริง

ประการ ที่สอง คือว่า ทุกประเทศทั่วโลกต่างแสดงออกถึงการเย้ยหยันการลงโทษประหารชีวิต เพราะ ถือว่าการประหารชีวิตเป็นโทษที่ละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนขั้นพื้นฐานของความเป็น มนุษย์ ซึ่งหมายถึงสิทธิในการมีชีวิตอยู่รอดและมีความมั่นคงปลอดภัยในชีวิต นั่นเอง

ประการ ที่สาม กติการะหว่างประเทศว่าด้วยสิทธิพลเมืองและสิทธิทางการเมือง กำหนดให้ประเทศที่ยังไม่ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต จะใช้การประหารชีวิตได้ ในกรณีความผิดที่มีลักษณะอุกฉกรรจ์เท่านั้น ซึ่ง โทษสำหรับความผิดอุกฉกรรจ์ไม่รวมความผิดเกี่ยวกับยาเสพติด แต่เมื่อวันที่ 28 กรกฎาคม 2548 ผู้ แทนประเทศไทยได้รายงานในที่ประชุม ต่อคณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชน ตามพันธกรณีของกติการะหว่างประเทศว่าด้วยสิทธิพลเมืองและสิทธิทางการเมือง ที่ประเทศไทยได้เข้าผูกพันไว้ว่า คดียาเสพติด ในประเทศไทยนั้น เป็นคดีอุกฉกรรจ์ จึงเป็นการขัดแย้งกับหลักการของกติกาฯดังกล่าว

ประการ สุดท้าย การลงโทษประหารชีวิต ไม่สามารถยับยั้งอาชญกรรมและการกระทำผิดที่เกี่ยวกับยาเสพติดอย่างได้ผล เมื่อเทียบกับการลงโทษด้วยมาตรการอื่น

สสส.จึง ขอคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิต เพราะ ถือเป็นการลงโทษที่โหดร้าย ไร้มนุษยธรรมและย่ำยีศักดิ์ศรีของมนุษย์ ซึ่งไม่สมควรมีโทษนี้ ต่อไปในประเทศที่มีอารยะ และควรเปลี่ยนเป็นโทษจำคุกตลอดชีวิตตลอดไป แทนการลงโทษประหารชีวิต

ณ วันที่ 25 สิงหาคม 2552

ผู้แถลง ดร.แดนทอง บรีน ปะธานสมาคมสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน(สสส.)

Statement by UCL
It is wrong that Thailand has executed two men on 24th August 2009:
It ignores the majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly in December 2007 and again in December 2008 in favour of a universal moratorium on the death penalty.
It flouts the greater certainty expressed world wide that the death penalty is a transgression of the most basic of all human rights, the right to life.
It goes against the interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressed to representatives of the Royal Thai government by the UN Human Rights Committee, on 28th July 2003, that drug offenses did not constitute a crime subject to Capital Punishment within the terms of the Covenant which it has ratified.
The execution of the two with a mere one hour notice is a flagrant transgression of the procedures established by the UN for the enactment of Capital Punishment.
It is a useless measure of no greater consequence than other punishment in the fight against drugs.
It is a cruel and inhumane punishment, with no place in a civilised state.
It is counter to the Buddhist belief in the sanctity of life
Danthong Breen
Union for Civil Liberty, Thailand

Death Penality Campaign for Buddhist Monks

Completion of Campaign for Aholition
The Union for Civil Liberty in Thailand has just completed a campaign for abolition of the death penalty in Buddhist centres of learning throughout the country. The objective was to enlist the support of Buddhist monks in a campaign against the death penalty, in the expectation that the Buddhist abhorrence of killing any creature would make them natural allies. 22 seminars were held; the total number of participants was 1,404+ with an average of 70 at each seminar. The attitude of Thai monks to the death penalty may be indicated by quoting two reactions from a recent seminar:
1.“The first principle of Buddhism is an absolute prohibition on inflicting harm or on killing, actions which violate life itself. Capital Punishment belongs to ancient times. We are in a new world and civilization has progressed. Punishment should entail respect for the value of life and not have recourse to the death penalty which has no purpose. Instead, the guilty person must be given the opportunity to do good for the period of life that remains and so make restitution for the evil done in the past.”
2.“I agree with the death penalty. All creatures on the earth are subject to Fate (Gam) and are ruled by its outcome and circumstances. Those who do what is right will achieve good, those who do what is evil will suffer evil”.

Our aim has been to recall to monks that the first reaction is a truer expression of Buddhist teaching.

Prison Conditions

หัวหน้าฝ่ายการแพทย์แห่งเรือนจำ ลาซองเต
คัดจากบันทึกความทรงจำของ เวโรนิค วาสเสอร์

“ที่เรือนจำลาซองเตนี้เราไม่สามารถที่จะทำหรือคิดแบบครึ่งๆกลางๆ ถ้าไม่กระตือรือร้นและทำงานอย่างเต็มที่ ก็อาจรู้สึกเฉยๆและทำงานแบบเสียไม่ได้ แต่ไม่มีทางที่จะทำเป็นทองไม่รู้ร้อนและทำงานแบบเครืองจักรเครื่องยนต์ได้ ต้องคิดและทำอย่างจริงจัง ถ้าคิดไม่ได้แบบนี้ก็ไม่สมควรทำงานที่นี่”

ในขณะที่การบริการทางการแพทย์ที่เรือนจำทั่วไปได้ขึ้นถึงขีดมาตรฐาน บางสิ่งบางอย่างไม่ได้เปลี่ยนไปเลย เช่น ระบบสุขอนามัยซึ่งไม่ถูกสุขลักษณะ และเป็นอันตราย สถานที่เก่าแก่ ความขี้เกียจ การสั่งจำจองโดยไม่มีการวางแผนล่วงหน้า กิจกรรมที่ไม่มีคุณค่า การขาดความใกล้ชิด การสำส่อนทางเพศ การขาดความรัก การรอคอยที่ไม่สิ้นสุด ความหวังสลาย ความโกรธ และสิ้นหวัง ความรุนแรง การทำร้ายตนเอง การพยายามฆ่าตัวตายซึ่งบางครั้งก็สำเร็จ มาตรการป้องกันความปลอกภัยที่มากเกินไปและหวาดระแวง การค้นตัวครั้งแล้วครั้งเล่า การใส่กุญแจมือ และบางครั้งโซ่ตรวนขา กฐเกณฑ์ที่ตั้งตามอำเภอใจ การยั่วเย้าทีไร้เหตุผลและน่าอับอาย ระบบที่ถ่วงดุลกับผู้อ่อนแอ การกักขังแยกที่ยาวนานบางครั้งถึงหลายปี ห้องขังดัดสันดานที่มีลักษณะคล้ายกับยุคกลาง และท้ายที่สุด คือ การถูกริดรอนเสรีภาพในสถาบันที่น่าจะเป็นตัวแทนแห่งสิทธินี้

ดอสตอเยฟสกี้เขียนไว้ว่า “เราไม่สามารถจะวัดขีดอารยธรรมของชาติหนึ่งชาติใดได้ถ้าไม่ไปดูเรือนจำเสียก่อน” อันนี้ก็ได้กระทำกันแล้ว

ข้อมูลที่ได้จากการค้นคว้านั้นมากหลายนัก รายงานโดยวุฒิสมาชิกและวุฒิสภาใช้หัวข้อว่า “คุกคือสิ่งที่น่าอับอายของสาธารณรัฐ”

เราทุกคนมีความผิดเท่าเทียมกันที่ทำให้เกิดสภาพนี้่ขึ้น แต่คำถามเฉพาะหน้าคือ เรามีอารยธรรมหรือเปล่า?

ข้าพเจ้าได้เข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องกับเรื่องเหล่านี้ก็เพราะไม่มีทางเลือกทางด้านศีลธรรมอย่างอื่น จรรยาบรรณทางแพทย์เขียนไว้ว่า “แพทย์ไม่สามารถจะแยกตัวเป็นอิสระจากงานอาชีพได้ไม่ว่าจะเป็นลักษณะใด เมื่อแพทย์นั้นรักษาคนไข้ใดก็ตามผู้ซึ่งไร้อิสระ แพทย์คนนั้นต้องไม่ยอมรับหรือทนกับการกระทำที่เป็นภัยต่อกาย ใจ หรือเกียรติของผู้ถูกคุมขัง ทั้งทางตรงและทางอ้อม สัตยบรรณฮีพโปคระตีสข้อที่สิบ ที่แพทย์ทุกคนต้องสาบานไว้ว่า “หน้าที่แรกสุดคือต้องรักษา สงวน และ เสริมสร้างไว้ซึ่งสุขภาพ ทุกประการ…ต้องนับถือทุกบุคคล ต้องเข้าขัดขวางและป้องกันผู้ที่อ่อนแอ หรือผู้ที่โดนย่ำยีทางด้านคุณธรรม” อุดมการณ์ของข้าพเจ้านั้นเป็นบทเรียนราคาแพงเพราะการมีความจริงใจและการเคารพในสิทธิ์ของผู้อื่นนั้นไม่ได้ให้คุณแก่ข้าพเจ้าเลย

อย่างไรข้าพเจ้าก็ไม่เสียใจ ข้าพเจ้ารักสถานที่นี้ และบุคคลทั้งหลายที่อยู่ในนั้น ข้าพเจ้าได้เรียนรู้มากมาย เคยมีช่วงเวลาที่หมดหวังท้อแท้ใจ แต่บางครั้งก็สุขและสะเทือนอารมณ์

คุกนั้นเป็นโรงเรียนแห่งความอดทน การรับฟังและนับถือผู้อื่น เราต้องไม่ลืมว่านักโทษนั้น ก็คือประชาชนผู้ซึ่งแม้เคยต้องขังมาก่อน ต่อไปก็จะได้กลับไปมีอิสระอีกครั้งหนึ่ง

เมื่อเดือนกุมภาพันธ์ ปี คศ 2000 ประธานเนติบัณฑิตสภาแห่งกรุงปารีส ประกาศว่า จะให้มีผู้แทนทางด้านกฐหมาย ประจำอยู่ที่เรือนจำเพื่อดูแลสิทธิของนักโทษ และช่วยว่าความในศาลด้วย น่าขันที่ว่าสิ่งเดียวกันนี้ก็เกิดขึ้นในเรือนจำทหารด้วย (?) กฐหมายทีออกเดือนเมษายน 2000 นั้นเกี่ยวกับประเด็นสิทธิของพลเมืองทั่วไปเมื่อมีปัญหากับหน่วยงานของรัฐทั้งหลาย แต่ส่วนราชทัณฑ์ กลับคิดว่าตัวเองอยู่นอกเหนือกฐหมายนี้ และได้มีหนังสือสอบถามไปทางไปยังสภานิติบัญยัติ ว่าตัวต้องทำตามกฐข้อน้ีหรือไม่ อยากถามง่ายๆว่า ส่วนราชทัณฑ์นั้นเป็นหน่วยงานของรัฐหรือเปล่า? นักโทษนั้นเป็นพลเมืองหรือเปล่า? คำตอบทั้งสองข้อคือไช่ และจะมีผลกระทบต่อไปในอนาคตด้วย

รายงานของคณะกรรมาธิการเมื่อเดือนมีนาคม ได้ชี้ให้เห็นทางออกทางการเมืองของบทลงโทษ โดยรับรองสิทธิของผู้ต้องขัง และเรียกร้องให้มีองค์กรอิสระบริการทางด้านกฐหมายให้นักโทษ ในที่สุดสิทธิก็ได้เดินเข้ามาในเรือนจำ และทนายความก็ได้ยื่นขาเข้ามาหนึ่งข้างในคุกแล้ว เพื่อกันมิให้ประตูปิดได้อีก

ข้าพเจ้าหวังว่าความหวังยิ่งใหญ่เมื่อปี 2000 นั้นจะไม่แตกสลาย คุกนั้นเป็นเพียงสถานีเปลี่ยนเส้นทางเท่านั้น ยังมีเรื่องราวที่เกิดขึ้นก่อนหน้าและหลังจากนั้นอีก…

การปรับปรุงเปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างใหญ่หลวงของบทลงโทษนั้นมีผลกระทบไปถึงประมวลกฐหมายอาญาทั้งหมด เมื่อเดือนมิถุนายน ปี 2000 กฐหมายซึ่งชี้บ่งว่าบุคคลที่ยังไม่ถูกตัดสินว่าผิด เป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์ นั้น น่าจะทำให้ผู้พิพากศามีสิทธิ์ไม่ยินยอมให้มีการจองจำแบบ สั่งขังระหว่างรอดำเนินคดี การขังแบบนี้ควรเป็นข้อยกเว้นเท่านั้น 40%ของนักโทษที่ประเทศฝรั่งเศสนั้นเป็นผู้ต้องขังที่อยู่ระหว่างพิจารณา นี่แสดงให้เห็นว่าประเทศฝรั่งเศสนั้นมิได้เป็นแบบอย่างที่ดีของการใช้สิทธิมนุษยชนเหมือนที่ประเทศจะพึงปราถนาเลย

ทุกๆปี มีพลเมืองประมาณ 1000 คนที่โดนจำขังโดยที่ทางการตัดสินแบบคลาดเคลื่อน และไม่ควรลืมว่าผู้ต้องขังบางคนมิได้กระทำผิดโดยแท้จริง นี่ข้าพเจ้าอ้างถึงพวกเข้าเมืองแบบผิดกฐหมาย (37% ของผู้ถูกกักขังทั้งหมดที่ ลาซองเต) ซึ่งเป็นความผิดที่ฝ่ายบริหารควรจัดการ ไม่สมควรที่จะได้รับโทษทัณฑ์ และผู้ติดยาเสพติด ทั้งพวกมิจฉาชีพเล็กๆน้อยๆ ผู้ซึ่งสมควรจะได้รับการช่วยเหลือทางด้านสุขภาพ และสังคม เพราะการลงโทษโดยการคุมขังนั้นไร้ผล ทั้งข้าพเจ้ายังคิดไปถึงผู้เยาว์ ที่ทั้งร้อยทั้งร้อยกระทำผิดอีก ทั้งบุคคลที่เป็นโรคจิต ผู้ซึ่งไม่สมควรอย่างยิ่งที่จะมาอยู่ในคุก และข้าพเจ้าก็คิดไปอีกถึงผู้ต้องขังหญิง ที่บางครั้งคลอดลูกในขณะที่ถูกล่ามโซ่อยู่ และนึกถึงเด็กอ่อนที่ต้องประสพกับการเสื่อมโทรมทางด้านจิตใจ และ ร่างกาย…

เห็นได้ชัดเจนว่าพวกเราไม่มีจินตนาการกันเลย คำตอบเดียวที่เรามีก็คือ คุก ห้องขังสำหรับทุกคนที่คุกคามเรา ที่กันบุคคลออกไปจากสังคม เป็นสถานที่รองรับบุคคลที่เราไม่รู้ว่าจะทำอะไรกับเขาดี

ตลอดแปดปีที่ข้าพเจ้าทำงานที่ลาซองเต ข้าพเจ้าได้พบกับผู้คนที่อยู่นอกขอบข่ายของสังคม คนยากจนที่บ่อยครั้งไม่มีโดกาสได้รับการดูแลรักษาทางด้านการแพทย์ที่เรือนจำมีไว้ให้ การต้องถูกติดคุกนั้นได้กลายมาเป็นแบบอย่างของการรักษาคนจนไปเสียแล้วหรือ?

เราผู้มีหน้าที่ต่างๆกัน เพราะว่าไม่มีการต่อต้านอย่างจริงจรัง จึงได้ปล่อยให้สกานการณ์นี้กลายเป็นเรื่องธรรมดาของสังคมไป

จริงๆแล้วไม่มีใครสนใจปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้นในเรือนจำ จนกระทั่งปีนี้ซึ่งสนใจจนเป็นแฟชั่น อยากให้แนวนิยมนี้อยู่นานหน่อย…

แล้วไม่ใช่ว่าคนทั่วไปไม่รู้เรื่องปัญหาผู้ต้องขังอย่างเดียว เรายังต้องหยิบยกประมวลกฐหมายอาญาขึ้นมาพิจารณากันอีกครั้ง เพื่อใคร่ครวญว่า การกดกันตัวบุคคล การถูกลดสภาพความเป็นคน การทำให้เขาต้องรับคำสั่งตลอดการ ต้องอับอาย และโดนโปรแกรม และถูกส่งเข้าโรงพยาบาลโรคจิต คนมีอำนาจกว่าย่อมอยู่เหนือคนอ่อนแอ ทั้งนี้เหมือนกับจะพูดอย่างไม่ต้องเสแสร้งว่า “ที่นี่ แกเป็นแค่เศษมนุษย์เท่านั้น”

อำนาจนี้ใช้ในที่ปิด โดยไม่มีความโปร่งใส ไม่มีการควบคุมจากภายนอก สักวันหนึ่งต้องลงเอยด้วยสภาพการณ์ที่เลวร้าย นี่ก็คือธรรมชาติของมนุษย์ และผลลัพธ์ก็เหมือนๆกันหมดในทุกสถาบันปิด

คุกนั้นทั้งทำให้อุ่นใจทั้งสร้างภาพพจน์ เราบอกตัวเองว่านี่คือสถานที่กักขังผู้ร้าย ที่มีคนเฝ้าแน่นหนา ทำให้เราผู้อยู่ข้างนอกนอนตาหลับ แต่ตามความเป็นจริงแล้วไม่ใช่เช่นนั้นเลย ผู้ต้องขังนั้นเปรียบเสมือนอยู่ในระหว่างเวลาละคอนเปลี่ยนฉาก ก่อนที่จะออกมามีชีวิตอีกครั้ง ถึงแม้ว่าจุดประสงค์คือการรักษาความแลอดภัย จุดมุ่งหมายควรจะเป็นว่า ผู้ต้องขังผู้ซึ่งเมื่อได้รับโทษทัณฑ์ตามความผิดแล้ว จะได้ออกมาเป็นคนที่ดีกว่าตอนเขาเข้าคุก เพื่อที่เขาจะไม่กระทำผิดอีก

หรือจะเลือก ให้นักโทษออกมาจากคุกโดยมีความโกรธและเกลียด เราควรเปิดโอกาสให้มีการปลดปล่อยมากขึ้น ให้มีความหวังเสมอว่าจะได้รับอิสระ ตามสถิติถ้าผู้ถูกคุมขังต้องจำคุกเต็มอัตราเท่าไหร่ จะมีความเป็นไปได้สูงที่เขาเหล่านั้นจะกระทำผิดอีก ถ้าขังนานเกินไป ผู้ต้องขังจะเสียคนไปเลย ในประเทศฝรั่งเศสนั้น การปลดปล่อยแบบมีเงื่อนไข ได้ลดลงมาเกือบครึ่ง…

มีทางเลือกมากมายกว่าที่จะต้องเป็นการจองจำ เช่น การควบคุมทางด้านตุลาการ การให้ผู้ต้องขังมีอิสระบ้าง การให้ผู้กระทำผิดซึ่งเป็นผู้เยาว์แก้ตัว ให้นักโทษอาศัยอยู่นอกคุกได้โดยมีหรือไม่มีผู้ควบคุม ให้ใช้แรงงานทั่วไป

แต่ทางเลือกเหล่านี้ไม่มีการจัดหาให้อย่างเพียงพอ และกฐหมายก็ไม่ได้ช่วยให้เกิดมีขึ้น เราต้องสร้างตัวเลือกอื่นขึ้นมาอีก ทางเลือกใหม่นี้ต้องมีอำนาจตุลาการเข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องเพื่อให้เป็นไปตามความต้องการของกฐหมาย และพร้อมมีสิทธิ์ได้รับความช่วยเหลือทางด้านกฐหมายทุกขั้นตอน ในขณะเดียวกันทางเรือนจำก็ต้องทำตัวเป็นสถาบัน ศึกษาและสังคม เราจะเป็นคนของสังคมได้อย่างไรถ้าเราต้องใช้ชีวิตอยู่ในที่ที่ไม่มีการสมาคม ถ้าเราเริ่มนับถือผู้ต้องขังได้เมื่อไร เมื่อนั้นเราก็หวังได้ว่าเขาจะนับถือตัวเขาเอง และผู้อื่นด้วย

เรือนจำนั้นเป็นสถานที่ที่ไร้อิสระอยู่แล้ว ไม่จำเป็นต้องเพิ่มความอับอายขายหน้า เข้าไปอีก ประเพณีของศาสนายิวคริสเตียนที่ต้องล้างบาปโดยการทุกข์ทรมานนั้นมิได้พิจารณาผลเสียทางด้านจิต ก็คือ การทุกข์ทรมาน และ การอับอายขายหน้า เป็นบ่อเกิดแห่งความโกรธแค้น และทำให้กระทำผิดอีก ในสถานการ์ณที่ก้าวร้าวและรุนแรงเช่นนี้ ย่อมเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่ ผู้ต้องขังจะกลับตนเป็นคนดี แก้ไขอดีต และก้าวไปข้างหน้าในสังคมได้

ไม่ใช่ว่าสถานกักกันสมัยใหมๆ่ที่ยุติธรรมและมีเมตตาจิตเท่านั้นที่เริ่มเปลี่ยน เราทั้งหลายต้องเปลี่ยนให้ได้ลึกถึงจิตวิญญาณ

ถ้าจะให้บังเกิดผล เราต้องมีมนุษยธรรมแต่ไม่จำเป็นต้องอ่อน คุกนั้นเป็นสถานกักกันที่กดดันความเจริญเติบโต ผู้ต้องขังน่าจะมีสิทธิส่วนตัว ที่จะทำงานบ้าง เรียนรู้ หรือฝึกงาน ไม่ใช่เพียงที่จะกลับไปอยู่ในสังคมได้อีกโดยไม่กระทำผิดอีกเท่านั้น แต่เพื่อให้เขาแก้ตัวให้กับสังคมที่เขาได้ทำผิดไว้ด้วย

งบประมาณที่จัดขึ้นเพื่อปรับปรุงและเปลี่ยนแปลงหน่วยงานราชทัณฑ์นั้นไม่ควรนำไปใช้แต่การสร้างเรือนจำใหม่ๆ แต่ควรเป็นการฝึกสอนเจ้าหน้าที่เรือนจำด้วย เพื่อที่การปฎิรูปจะเป็นไปอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพยิ่งขึ้น อาชีพนี้ยากนักควรต้องมีการ ลงทุน เพื่อที่พวกเขาจะได้ไม่เป็นแค่พนักงานผู้ถือกุญแจ… การลงทุนนี้เป็นทางเลือกอีกอย่างแทนที่การสร้างคุก และก็ไม่น่าจะแพงไปกว่าค่าใช้จ่ายในการคุมขังผู้ต้องหาหนึ่งคน

ข้าพเจ้าเพียงพอแล้วกับสถานกักกัน กับการไม่เชื่อมโยงกัน กับระบบบริหารงาน และ เหนือสิ่งอื่นได ข้าพเจ้าต้องหนีไปจากสถานที่ปิดนี้ แปดปีที่เหมือนถูกจองจำนั้นพอแล้ว ข้าพเจ้าไม่อยากจากที่นี่ไปโดยไม่บอกอะไรเลย และไม่ต้องการเขียนเรื่องเล่าที่น่าอ่านกว่านี้เพียงเพื่อว่าจะไม่ได้โดนว่า โดนโจมตี หรือมีคนอิจฉา แต่ก็ได้รับการสนับสนุนอย่างมากมาย ถ้าจำเป็นจริงๆข้าพเจ้าก็จะกลับมาทำงานที่นี่อีก

The most recent posting contains up to date details of death row in Bang Kwang prison. Concerned with the death penalty we are continually reminded of the awful conditions of detention, especially for those condemned to death. The most blatant offence against the humane treatment of prisoners is the permanent shackling of detainees. Remedies are not in piecemeal improvement of abuses, but rather in a total change in the penal system. In the following extract from a book which led to upheaval in the French prison system the principles of such a change are passionately laid out.

Chief Medical Officer of La Santé Prison
Extract from the memoir of Veronique Vasseur
“At La Santé, one cannot be lukewarm. Either one is passionate and one goes the whole way, or one becomes indifferent, and performs one’s function very badly. One cannot just maintain a technical and professional attitude. Either you commit yourself, or it is not worth the bother”.

While the extension of medical services in the prisons has reached normal standards, other things are unchanged: hygiene conditions which are precarious and unhealthy, aged locations, laziness, detention without planning, valueless activities, absence of intimacy, promiscuity, absence of affection, endless waiting, hopes which are always frustrated, anger and hopelessness, violence, self mutilation, attempted suicides as well as actual suicides but also security that is sometimes excessive and paranoid, repeated body searches, handcuffs or sometimes leg irons, arbitrary regulations, useless and humiliating teasing, systems of balance which weigh on the most vulnerable, prolonged isolation which can go on for years, medieval disciplinary quarters, and, finally, a total lack of rights in a place meant to represent them.

Dostoyevsky wrote: “We cannot judge the level of civilization of a nation without visiting its prisons”. This, at least, has been well taken care of …
The findings are overwhelming. A report made by members of parliament and senators bears the heading “Prisons, a Shame for the Republic”.
We are all responsible for this state of affairs. But the immediate question is: are we civilized?
I became involved because I had no other moral choice. The code of medical ethics reads; ‘The doctor may not depart from her professional independence in any form whatever’ Article 5. ‘A doctor examining or caring for any person deprived of liberty must neither directly nor indirectly, even by being present, favour or tolerate any action against the physical or mental integrity, or the dignity of the detainee’ Article 10. My Hippocratic oath reminds me that ‘My first duty is to reestablish, to preserve and to promote health in all its aspects… I respect all persons, I will intervene to defend them if they are weak and vulnerable, or when their integrity or dignity are threatened’. My idealism cost me dearly, honesty and respect do not pay.
I regret nothing. I profoundly loved this place and its occupants. I have learned much. I have had moments of despair, but also great joys and much emotion.
A prison is a school of tolerance, of listening and respecting others. It must never be forgotten that a detainee is a citizen who, deprived of liberty during a more or less long intermission, is called to join again the free world.
In February 2000, the President of the French Bar in Paris, announced that there would be a permanent legal representative within the prison to care for the rights of the detainees and to plead on their behalf in court disputes. By an amusing coincidence this practice had already become a reality in all French prisons. The law of April 2000 established the rights of citizens with regard to the administration. The penal administration, abusively considering itself apart, queried the Council of State, whether it was subject to this regulation. The question is fundamental. Is the penitential administration an administration or not? Is a detainee a citizen? The answer in both cases was yes, and will have considerable effect on the future.

A Commission report in March shows the way for a truly political penitentiary. It affirms the rights of the detainees and calls for the creation of an independent control charged with verifying the application of laws behind bars. At last, rights have found an entry into prisons and lawyers have a foot in the door to stop it being closed again.
I hope that the immense hopes of the year 2000 will not be shattered, a prison is only a transit station, there is a before and an after…..
The upheaval in the penal institutes has had repercussions in the whole judicial world. In June 2000, a law on the presumption of innocence foresees a liberty judge who should take a stand on the demand for provisional detention by the judge preparing the case for the courts….. Provisional detention should be the exception; 41% of those arrested being detained and excessively long provisional detentions show that France is no longer the model of human rights it has always wished to be.
Every year, about 1,000 persons are imprisoned by error. Nor should we forget those who should not be there at all. I think especially of illegal immigrants (37% of those in La Santé), their offence being an administrative matter they should not be subject to the penal code. I think too of the drug addicts and small time delinquents, whose treatment should be health and socially based; repressive punishment is ineffectual. I think too of minors, who offend again at a rate of almost 100%. Also the psychically disturbed, who have no place in the prison system….I think too of imprisoned women, who sometimes give birth while shackled, and of their babies who suffer psychic and motor disequilibrium….
It appears that we lack imagination. A sole response: prison, prison for all those who derange us, to exclude from society those with whom one does not know what to do….
During my eight years in la Santé, I met with, apart from some exceptions, a marginal population, poor, often without access to care and taking the opportunity of access to prison medical services. Has imprisonment become a mode of treatment of poverty?
We have all, each at her level of responsibility, by our lack of protest, allowed this situation to develop into the habitual routine of our society.
In fact nobody was interested in prisons. Until becoming a fashion this year; if only it could last….
Not only is it that many have no connection with the prison system. The Penal Code must be re-examined, its role in oppressing individuals, breaking down their personalities, making them creatures of response to orders, humiliation being programmed and institutionalized.. Power is exercised by the strongest over the weakest. In effect what is being said, without the hypocrisy, is ‘Here, you are no longer anything!’
Such power, in an enclosed area, without any transparency, without external control, can only end in aberration. Such is human nature and the outcome is the same in all closed institutions.
Prison reassures as much as it engenders fantasy. One says to oneself, that is where evil is contained. It is well guarded and we can sleep peacefully in our beds. But the reality is otherwise. The detainee is in a state of intermission and must re-emerge. Even though the goal is security, the objective is that he who has fulfilled his penalty emerges a better person than when he entered the prison, so that he will not re-offend.
The alternative would be for the freed prisoner to emerge in hatred and anger. One must envisage more permissions to leave prison, more anticipated liberations. According to statistics, the more the full penalty is served, the higher the probability of re-offense. If the penalty is too long, the prisoner is destroyed for ever. In the last fifteen years in France, conditional release has decreased by half…
There are already many alternatives to prison – judicial control, semi-liberty, penal reparation for minors, outside placement, with or without supervision, general works…but these arrangements remain insufficient and justice avails too little of them. One must invent new alternatives. These procedures must be judicial as is wished by lawyers, and with the right to legal assistance at every stage. It is equally necessary that the prison play an educative and social role, one cannot have a social being in an asocial setting… It is only in respecting the detainee that one can hope that he regains self-respect and the respect of others.
A prison consists in the deprivation of liberty. It is useless, and also ineffectual to add humiliation. The judeo-christian tradition which promotes redemption by suffering is oblivious of psychological evidence: suffering and humiliation generate hatred, vengeance, and lead to re-offence. One does not re-establish oneself, make amends for the past, and take a step towards society, in an environment of violence and force.
It is not only in fair new prisons and with benevolent law that change occurs, a profound change in spirit is required.
To have effect, one must be humane, which does not entail laxity. Actually prisons fulfill their function as guardian efficiently, but, paradoxically, with a certain permissiveness which avoids the growth of revolt. The detainee should have a personalized sanction. He should have rights, be able to accomplish tasks, acquire a formation, and serve an apprenticeship. And that not only to re-enter society and avoid re-offense, but also to make reparation to society whose laws have been transgressed.
Budgets for reform of the prison system should not be dedicated only to constructing new prisons but also to the formation of better prison officials without whom no prison reform can be effective. Theirs is a difficult occupation and which requires individual investment so that they are not just carriers of keys…Investment must also be made in alternatives to prison, which, besides, would cost must less than a stay in prison.
I have had enough of prison, of its incoherencies, its administrative loads and, above all, I need to escape this closed milieu. Eight years in confinement is enough. I did not wish to leave this place without saying anything, nor did I wish to write what might have been more acceptable rather than earning condemnation, attack, jealousy, but also immense support. If necessary, I would do it all again…

Bang Kwang Improves

Conditions in Bang Kwang Prison
A year ago Bang Kwang Prison was listed by the Times Newspaper as one of the ten worst prisons in the world. However, conditions there have improved; there is now at least one worse prison in Thailand itself! The following is an up to date summary of the conditions for Death Row prisoners, most of whom are held in Bang Kwang.

OVERVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN DEATH ROW
The Prison of Bang Khwang in Nonthaburi, Bangkok, consists of 13 buildings. Apart from building 8 (factories), 9 (kitchen), 10 (solitary confinement), 11 (executions) , 12 (hospital), 13 (university and pigs), 15 (coffee shop), each of them is composed of cells of similar size and capacity. The total capacity of the prison is 4,000 and the number of prisoners amounts at present to about 4130.
Building 1 which used to host all death row inmates is now closed and death row prisoners are located in buildings 2 and 5, separated from other prisoners, including those condemned to life imprisonment.
Death row prisoners are between 20 to 30 people to a cell, all together, without any distinction regarding their age, offence or the status of their case. They sleep on blankets lying on the floor. Electric lights are on 24 hours a day. They can shower every day but are provided infrequently with toiletries. They are chained at the ankles 24 hours a day for the entire length of their stay on death row.
Their daily routine is as follows :
The cells open at 7.30 am for breakfast. They can go out to exercise and/or study until 11.00 am. Lunch is served between 12.30 and 1 pm. They are locked back in their cell at 2.30 pm or 3 pm depending on the day. No dinner is served. The two daily meals are composed of rice and a soup with pieces of meat or fish. They can take as much rice as they want for lunch. No free coffee or tea are available.
They have no possibility to meet with other prisoners. They can only study or exercise among themselves.
They are allowed 2 visits a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The first round of visits starts at 1 pm until 1.45 pm and the second round starts at 1.45 until 2.30 pm. Visitors must arrive half an hour prior to the visiting time.
They are allowed phone calls twice a week for 5 minutes. The use of cell phones is prohibited.
They are allowed to write letters. However, the content is censored and the letters cannot be too long or contain any explicit complaint.
In case of ill-treatment, prisoners can submit a complaint to prison authorities. However, the death row inmates in Bang Khwang are usually a lot more subject to depression than to physical violence. That is why moral support from the outside, especially from families and friends, is so essential to them.

Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder

โทษประหารชีวิตไม่สามารถยับยั้งอาชญากรรม
โทษประหารชีวิตไม่สามารถยับยั้งอาขญา¬กรรม-จากข้อมูลการศึกษาของมหาวิทยาลัย Colorado at Boulder

88%ของนักอาชญาวิทยาชั้นนําชองประเทศไม่เชื่อว่าโทษประหารชีวิตนั้นจะสามารถยับยั้งฆาตกรรมได้นี่ก็คือ ข้อมูลจากการศึกษาค้นคว้าซึ่งตีพิมพ์วันนี้ ในวารสาร Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology ของมหาวิทยาลัย Northwestern University School of Law ซึ่งเขียนโดยศาสตราจารย์ MichaelRadelet ประธานคณะสังคมศาสตร์แห่งมหาวิทยาลัย Colorado at BoulderและTracy Lacock ทนายความ ผู้ฃึ่งเคยเป็นนักศึกษา ของมหาวิทยาลัยเดียวกันนี้มาก่อน ศาสตราจารย์ Radelet ผู้ซึ่งเป็นหนึ่งในผู้เชี่ยวชาญชั้นนําของประเทศ ทางด้านโทษประหาร กล่าวว่า ข้อมูลการค้นคว้าที่ชื่อว่า "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists" นั้น ได้ลบความเชื่อโดยสิ้นเชิงว่าโทษประหารนั้นทําให้อาชกรรมลดลง Radelet กล่าวต่อไปว่าข้อมูลนี้ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่าการที่วงการทั่วไปต่อต้านการยั้บยั้ง
โทษประหารชีวิต เพราะเชื่อว่าจะทําให้อาชญากรรมลดลงนั้น แท้จริงแล้วเป็นความคิดที่ผิด เมื่อได้ถูกสํารวจอย่างจริงจังโดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญทางด้านนี้โดยตรงและข้ออ้างต่างๆเพื่อสนับสนุนโทษประหารนั้น ออกจะอ่อน เมื่อเทียบกับผลลบอื่นๆ เช่น ค่าใช้จ่ายสูง การตัดสินแบบไม่เป็นธรรม การฆ่าคนบริสุทธิ์และการดึงเอาทุนใช้จ่ายจากมาตรการประสิทธิภาพที่ควรจะได้ช่วยลดอาชญากรรมและช่วยเหลือผู้ถูกกระทํา การศึกษาข้อมูลนี้ กระทําโดยการส่งแบบสอบถามให้กับนักอาชญาวิทยาชั้นนํา ชองประเทศอเมริกา รวมทั้งนักวิจัยแห่งสถาบัน American Society of Criminology และผู้ได้รับรางวัล Southerland Award จากสถาบันเดียวกันนี้ รวมทั้งประธานสถาบันท่านปัจุบันทุกท่าน American Society of Criminology นี้เป็นสถาบันชั้นสูงสุดของนักอาชญาวิทยาทั่วโลก ผู้ตอบแบบสอบถามดังกล่าว 77 ท่าน มิได้ถูกถามตามความเห็นส่วนตัวเลย ว่าคิดอย่างไร
กับโทษประหารแต่ทว่าได้ขอให้ตอบคําถามตามพื้นฐานของข้อมูลที่ได้จากการวิจัยเชิงประจักษ์ ที่เกี่ยวกับประเด็นนี้ Radeletได้พบว่า 87% ของนักอาชญาวิทยาเชื่อว่า การยับยั้งโทษประหารชีวิตนั้น จะไม่มีผลกระทบเลยกับอัตราฆาตกรรมและอีก 75% ของผู้ถูกถาม ตอบเป็นเสียงเดียวกันว่า "การถกเถียงเกี่ยวกับประเด็นโทษประหารนั้นทําให้สภาคองเกรสและผู้ออกกฐหมายของรัฐเบี่ยงเบนความสนใจไปจากการแก้ปัญหาอาชญากรรมที่แท้จริง"
ทั้ง RadeletและLacock เขียนต่อไปว่า ข้อมูลการวิจัยครั้งนี้ ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่า นักอาชญาวิทยาชั้นนําของโลกส่วนใหญ่จะเชื่อว่าการวิจัยเชิงประจักษ์ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่าเหตุผลที่ทั่วไปอ้างเพื่อยับยั้งโทษประหารนั้น เป็นความเห็นที่ไม่ได้อยู่ในรากฐานแห่งความเป็นจริง นักอาชญาวิทยาเหล่านี้ได้ออกความเห็นอย่างพร้อมเพรียงกันว่าโทษประหารนั้นมืได้มีผลยับยั้งอาชญากรรมมากไปกว่าการถูกจําคุกระยะยาวเลย การศึกษาข้อมูลนี้ได้รับทุนจาก Sheilah's Fund แห่ง Tides Foundation ของเมือง San Francisco โดยที่ Death Penalty Information Center Washington DC เป็นผู้จัดการให้


According to New CU-Boulder Study

Eighty-eight percent of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published today in Northwestern University School of Law's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology authored by Professor Michael Radelet, chair of the sociology department at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Traci Lacock, an attorney and CU-Boulder graduate student in sociology.

The study titled "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists" undermines deterrence as a rationale for maintaining the punishment, said Radelet, one of the nation's leading experts on the death penalty.

"These data show that deterrence, which in many circles is the strongest justification for the death penalty, falls on its face when closely examined by those who are best qualified to study and evaluate it," Radelet said. "Any justifications for the death penalty that might remain pale in comparison to drawbacks such as high costs, arbitrariness, executing the innocent and diverting resources from more effective ways to reduce crime and assist victims."

The study was conducted by sending questionnaires to the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the American Society of Criminology's prestigious Southerland Award and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. The American Society of Criminology is the top professional organization of criminologists in the world.

The 77 respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the wisdom of the death penalty, but instead to answer the questions only on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research available on the subject.

Eighty-seven percent of the expert criminologists also believed that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates, Radelet said. And 75 percent of the respondents agreed that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems."

"Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world's top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth," Radelet and Lacock wrote. "The consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment."

The study was funded by Sheilah's Fund at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco and was arranged through the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

Santi Asoke and the Death Penalty in Thailand

The union for Civil Liberty is currently conducting a series of 20 seminars on the death penalty throughout Thailand. Recently a seminar was held in the main temple of Santi Asoke, a noted Buddhist grouping founded by Phra Bodhirak, previously a well known media figure. Santi Asoke is noted for its interest in the reform of Thai society. The seminar began with an address given by Phra Bodhirak. Santi Asoke is firmly opposed to the death penalty. Strictly vegetarian, they also avoid the killing of any living being.

“พ่อท่าน สมณะ โพธิรักษ์ เป็นผู้เปิดสัมมนาและปาฐกถา ได้แดสงความเห็นว่า “สิทธิมนุษยชนกับโทษประหารชีวิต เราต้องเข้าถึงระบบโลกที่เรียกว่าสมมุติสัจจะ กับระบบธรรมที่เรียกว่าปรมัตถสัจจะถ้าเราไม่เข้าใจสองส่วนนี้อย่างชัดเจนแล้วจะปนกัน แล้วจะบังคับให้คนนั้นมาเป็นอันนี้ คนนี้มาเป้นอันนั้น ยกตัวอย่างง่ายๆ จะให้พระหรือผู้ที่อยู่ในธรรมวินัยนี้แล้วไปประหารชีวิตใครไม่ได้ ปาราชิกเลย มาเป็นสมณะแล้วไม่มีสิทธิจะไปฆ่าใคร นี้คือโลกของปรมัตถ์สัจจะ
ดังนั้น คนที่อยู่ในกรอบนี้ใครจะร้ายแรงอย่างไรไม่มีสิทธิฆ่าเขา เพราะศาสนาเข้าใจถึงเรื่องกรรมวิบาก กรรมวิบากเป็นของตน ใครชั่วใครเลวจะได้รับกรรมวิบากเอง คนไม่ต้องไปซ้ำเติม กรอบนี้ไม่มีสิทธิไปฆ่าใคร จะผิดจะถูกใครจะมีความร้ายแรงขนาดไหน ไม่มีสิทธิไปฆ่าเขา ชีวิตเป็นของเขา ให้เขารับวิบากกรรมของเขาเอง
ทีนี้ในเรื่องของสมมุติสัจจะ ก็มีกรอบของการลงโทษกันเอง เขาก็จะรับผิดชอบกันเองวิทบากที่เขาทำกันเอง นี่เป็นเรื่องของอจินไตย เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่ใช่โทษประหารชีวิตหรอก เขาเองก็ฆ่ากันเอง อาฆาตมาดร้ายฆ่ากันเอง ขนาดมีกฎหมายซ้อนอยู่แล้วด้วยว่า คุณไม่ฆ่าเขากฎหมายเขาก็ฆ่าคุณ เขายังไม่กลัวกันเลย เขายังละเมิด นี้คืออำนาจของเวรภัย อำนาจของวิบาก อำนาจของกิเลส นี้คือโลกของสมมุติสัจจะ เพราะฉะนั้นจะมาตั้งกฎเกณฑ์ว่าไม่มีการประหารชีวิต คนก็ฆ่ากันเองอยู่ดี แต่ไม่เป็นไรหรอกเรื่องสมมุติ การไม่มีประหารชีวิตเป็นปรมัตถสัจจะ ชีวิตของเขาเป็นของเขา เขาจะทำผิดทำชั่วอะไรเป็นเรื่องของเขา ไม่มีสิทธิไปประหารชีวิตเขา เป็นแต่เพียงไล่เขาออกจากหมู่คณะไป
ถ้าจะให้อาตมาออกความเห็นโดยส่วนตัว การที่จะไปละเมิดฆ่าใครก็ไม่สมควรอย่างยิ่ง ใครเขาจะชั่วจะเลวอย่างไร อาตมาเชื่อกรรม เชื่อวิบาก กรรมเป็นของของตน วิบากเป็นของของตน ใครเป็นคนชั่วขนาดไหนเขาเขาจะรับวิบากของเขาเอง จะมีคู่วิบากจัดสรรของมันเอง ไม่ต้องห่วงหรอก ในสังคมมนุษย์มันจะเกิดของมันเอง เพราะฉะนั้นปล่อยเขาไปเถอะ และจะเป็นไปตามวิบาก ถ้าใครเชื่อกรรมเชื่อวิบาก... เพราะฉะนั้นการกำหนดโทษประหารชีวิตอาตมาว่าไม่สมควรกระทำ แต่มีโทษที่ต้องแรงมีข้อกฎเกณฑ์ไม่ให้เขามีโอกาสมาทำชั่วในหมู่กลุ่มนั้นๆ ได้อีก สมัยโบราณเขาเนรเทศไปอยู่เกาะที่คนเลวอยู่ แต่สมัยนี้ไม่มีเกาะให้อยู่แล้ว สูงที่สูดในระดับจองจำตลอดชีวิตก็น่าจะพออันนั้นก็รุนแรงแล้ว
เสริมเรื่องสิทธินิดนึง พระพุทธเจ้าสอนเรื่องสิทธิไม่ใช่เรื่องตามใจตนเอง การจะใช้สิทธิไม่ใช่เพื่อบำเรอกิเลสตยเอง เพราะมันจะต้องมีกรอบธรรมเนียมประเพณี วัฒนธรรมความสมควร ไม่สมควรของสังคม เรียกว่ามารยาทสังคมก็ได้ หรือคุณธรรมสังคมก็ได้ ส่วนปัญหาที่จะไปประหารชีวิตนั้นเป็นปัญหาปลายเหตุ เพราะคนจะไม่มีความรุนแรง ไม่มีความเลวร้ายถึงปานนั้นถ้าคนมาลดกิเลส ถ้ามาแก้ปัญหาที่ต้นเหตุเรื่องปัญหาของสิทธิ ปัญหาของการลงโทษอะไรพวกนนี้จะเบาลง สังคมจะไม่มีโทษรุนแรงเลย”

The Torture of Waiting for Execution

Victor Hugo in ‘The Last Day of a Condemned Man’ describes with all the passion and clarity of his art ‘the slow succession of tortures which comprise the process of execution.’ In 1829 he outlined the great misrepresentation of the process of execution which is still current today; ‘they think that the execution is only the fall of a blade, nothing before, nothing after. They do not think of the sufferings of the spirit as they vaunt the power of killing with little physical pain’, a pain deemed insignificant because it only lasts half a second.
Talking with a prisoner on death row, a few days ago, I perceived the suffering, indeed the torture, of indecision, of the long wait for either execution or some kind of reprieve. It is a torture which generates bouts of extreme depression and hopelessness, negating any purpose in life, even an indifference to a further stage in the legal process.
For six years now, no one has been executed in Thailand, although death sentences are still handed down at a rate of more than one a week. Prison officials ask the condemned why they worry, no one is actually being executed. But the threat that it may all start again at any moment is an exquisite torture, like the notorious dripping of a water tap which never ceases; already a cruel and inhumane pain.

Death Penalty Thailand Statistics - 8th June 2009

All cases, present status

M/F***Appeal Court******Supreme Court******Complete********Total
M***********442***************223**************104*****************769
F************64****************13***************11******************88
Total*******506***************236**************115*****************857


Death Penalty for Drugs

M***********175****************67***************73*****************315
F************53****************12***************10******************75
Total*******228****************79***************83*****************390

Death Penalty for Homicide and related crimes

M***********267***************156***************31*****************454
F************11*****************1****************1******************13
Total*******278***************157***************32*****************467

Capital Crime in Thailand

Those who work for abolition of the death penalty dread the occurrence of vicious and totally inexcusable homicides. Cases of homicide which incur the death penalty fall into three categories:
1. Cases where despite the requirement in law that the evidence be clear and convincing, allowing for no other interpretation than the guilt of the accused, reasonable doubt persists and the possibility exists of wrongful conviction. A famous case in the Philippines which greatly helped abolition related in the court records that the accused had said such and such. Subsequent examination of t he condemned person by a doctor revealed that the accused was deaf and dumb, throwing doubt on the whole legal process. More generally, many cases occur where examination of the evidence reveals serious flaws and unanswered questions. Abolitionists can refer to such cases as 'unsafe' convictions.
2. Most cases are convincing enough. and may even include a plea of guilt by the accused. But it is seldom that evidence is overwhelmingly strong, as it must be, independently of a guilty plea which may have been induced by seemingly endless interrogation or other cause. Above all, there are extenuating circumstances. The accused may have led a blameless life and the crime appear quite out of character. Or the accused may have serious deficiencies of intelligence, be uneducated, have little understanding of legal procedure. Many accused are poor and disadvantaged, or may have been subject to abuse. In the words of Pascal, 'to understand everything is to forgive everything'.
3. Finally, there are crimes which are blatant, where the evidence is indeed overwhelming. Or there are crimes that are so vicious and cruel that the concept of mercy can hardly be considered. Cases like this awake feelings of revenge, feelings that no punishment is sufficient. There is also a fear that the guilty person is a monster who could repeat the crime if not executed. It is indeed difficult to argue against the death penalty in such cases. But argue we must, in the name of humanity itself.

While Thailand approaches a period of six years without the death penalty, it is a tragedy that cases of the third kind still occur. In one case the death sentence was handed down on a woman who had hired four men to kill her 56 year old husband to benefit from a 2 million baht insurance cover she had taken out on his life. The four men were also found guilty of murder but the death sentence against them was commuted to a 25 year sentence on account of their admission of guilt. Surely, a cut and dried case!

On the 14th April there occurred a particularly cruel crime.
"On Friday, robbers killed Apisa Tasi, 12, and her sister Orawan, 7, by hanging them at the back of their house in Ban Koh Mi in tambon Klong Hae, Haadyai. Their hands and legs were bound.
Police believe at least two robbers raided the house. They took 13,000 baht in cash and two-baht weight in gold jewellery.
The girls were left alone as their grandfather and his wife went out to tap rubber trees. Their mother was not in the house during the raid."
Police surmise that the girls would have recognised the killers who were probably their relatives, and were killed to avoid detection. A horrendous crime for such a paltry motivation. It is likely that arrests will be made and we will witness strengthened support for the death penalty.

And yet, everyone has the right to life.

Updated Thai Death Penalty Figures

Total Number Condemned to Death: 754 persons

All legal process completed: 91 persons
Cases still under Appeal: 428 persons
Cases under review by Supreme Court: 235 persons
New death sentences handed down in 2008: 57 persons (approximate figure)

Total number of cases of condemnation by Court of First Instance, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court in the year 2008: 232 persons

Source: Government source, spokesperson for Bang Kwang prison management: 11th March 2009

Capitalist argument for abolition

Well, glory be! Abolition is being achieved because it is cheaper than executions. We know that capitalism is amoral, but that it should act in favour of a moral issue to save money! Alleluia.

When Gov. Martin O’Malley appeared before the Maryland Senate last week, he made an unconventional argument that is becoming increasingly popular in cash-strapped states: abolish the death penalty to cut costs.
Mr. O’Malley,Democrat and a Roman Catholic who has cited religious opposition to the death penalty in the past, is now arguing that capital cases cost three times as much as homicide cases where the death penalty is not sought. “And we can’t afford that,” he said, “when there are better and cheaper ways to reduce crime.”

Lawmakers in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and New Hampshire have made the same argument in recent months as they push bills seeking to repeal the death penalty, and experts say such bills have a good chance of passing in Maryland, Montana and New Mexico.

Unfortunately, such arguments are unlikely to be valid in Thailand, where summary legal proceedings leading to capital punishment are unlikely to be more expensive than long term imprisonment. But, on the other hand, the low cost of appallingly overcrowded prisons, inadequate warder to prisoner ratios, and primitive conditions may indeed make lifetime imprisonment a cheaper option. Must we really engage in such economics of death? Hrdefender has just returned from a visit to Bhutan where operative Buddhist beliefs have banished the death penalty for the last hundred years, and vegetarianism, to spare the lives of animals, is a preferred life style.

The Blooded Stone - Stoning in Iran

The issue of death by stoning is the most tortuous of all death penalty issues. The following article is a remarkable attempt to confront the practice on all fronts, including the sensitive issue of the claim that the practice is derived from Koranic teaching. The article is long, but its content is momentous. Many of the arguments are those we have exchanged with our Muslim friends in Thailand during seminars on the death penalty..

The Bloodied Stone
Execution by Stoning
Emadeddin Baghi

A few weeks ago the media published a report regarding the imminent stoning of a man and a woman in Qazvin for the charge of adultery committed with a married woman. Upon hearing the news, Ayatollah Shahrudi, the head of the Iranian Judiciary, immediately ordered the suspension of this act. What happened was yet another manifestation of the important role played by the media in informing Iranian officials about the atrocities that occur hidden from the eyes of everyone. But two weeks later a piece of news stunned everyone. The judge in the case ordered the stoning of the man and since there were not enough pious people present, he implemented the sentence with the help of a few members of the police force. This time the issue of stoning that had been placed in the back burner for a while made headlines and the concern about its repetition came to life again.

I am writing this piece not to engage in sophistry but to address a serious issue that constitutes one of our contemporary legal quandaries. I have been a student of Islamic jurisprudence and knowledge as well as sociology and in recent years I have focused my religious studies on the issue of capital punishment (execution, qessas, and stoning).

The real and fabricated images of stoning in the foreign media and their destructive impact on Islam and Iran are well-known and there is really no reason to discuss them. What motivates me to write is the recent implementation of several stoning sentences and the existence of 9 people in line to be stoned, some of whom asides form being accused of illicit relationships are also charged with murder.

Another motivation is the fact that the head of the judiciary does not consider these sentences as beneficial and has ordered their suspension. Although this order has significantly reduced the issuance of these sentences, still some judges continue to hand them out (the Qazvin example being the latest) since the head of the Judiciary’s order has yet to find legal expression, keeping the relevant laws of the Islamic penal code in force. Hence my plea for legislation that eliminates and replaces stoning as a more definite path for preventing such verdicts.

Considering that Iran’s civil and criminal code is inspired by the Islamic juridical tradition and popular culture is also intertwined with religion, legal reform requires understanding of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and new independent interpretation (ijtihad), the responsibility for which lies with religious leaders (fuqaha). I believe that the use of reasoning regarding the need to eliminate and replace stoning is more beneficial and effective than relying on slogans, false claims, and commanding language. So long as there is hope in someone listening and having an impact through reasoning, words spoken in anger remain unsatisfying and should stay in cover.

Here, I would like to discuss stoning from eight different vantage points:

1. Human Rights
2. The Qur’an
3. Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence
4. As a Case Study
5. Interest of Islam
6. Legal Perspective
7. Emotional Impact
8. Historical and Sociological Perspective


Human Rights

From the point of view of human rights, the stoning sentence is against human goodness and dignity in two ways. First, the right to life is an intrinsic right that cannot be taken away. In other word, it is the right to life that should shape law and be the criteria for forging it and not the other way around. Second, the way the stoning punishment is meted out is violent and an insult to human dignity. Now the question is what is the relationship between stoning as a punishment and Islamic laws?


The Qur’an

The stoning verdict in traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is a legal command but it has no basis in the Qur’an. Verse 15 and 16 of al- Nisā (which is said to have been voided with Verse 2 of Nur specifying 100 lashes for adultery) talks about the punishment for adultery for the first time in the following terms: “If any of your women are guilty of adultery, take the evidence of four [Muslim] witnesses amongst you against them, and if they testify, confine them [women] to houses until death claims them, or Allah ordains for them some [salvation] path.” And “if two among you are guilty of vileness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone for Allah is kind and merciful.”

Al-Zamakhshari says in Al-Kashshaf that the meaning of this verse is prison for life for the adulterer which was the punishment for this offense at the outset of Islam and was later voided by Verse 2 of Nur which states, “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” At the same time, al-Zamakhshari thinks that the verse was probably not voided and adds that the objective of this verse is to keep the woman in the house to protect her from the repetition of the committed sin and men’s aggression, hence creating conditions for her marriage.

Allameh Tabatabai, one of the prominent thinkers of Shi’i Islam, says the following regarding the two verses:
Interpreters have narrated that when the lashes verse in Nur descended upon him, the Prophet said this is the same remedy and path that God had promised in Verse 15 of al-Nisā. Perhaps this appearance is another appearance in this verse and this is what should be understood from the language of this verse that the command is not permanent and will soon be voided since it is said: ‘and or the Almighty will offer a remedial path.’ In this sentence the issue pf permanent imprisonment of the woman is connected to the testimony of witnesses and not the occurrence of the indecent act. In short, the only time the permanent incarceration command is issued by the sovereign is when four witnesses testify about the woman’s action and if the witnesses do not testify no judgment is rendered, even if the sovereign is certain about the judgment… What exists is the interpretation of incarceration for life but even that is not in prison; rather it is commanded to keep them in homes until their death arrives. This also has a clear reason in order to make the work of Muslims easier and avoid hardship and that is why it is commanded ‘until death arrives’ or that ‘a salvation path is prescribed’; the intent is salvation from life imprisonment. And that there is ambivalence and commanded ‘this or that’ is a reference to the hope that life imprisonment be voided as it did happened since the lashing command voided life imprisonment… and the issue of imprisonment after the death did not become effective. Hence if the verse is about adulterous women, there is no doubt that it has been voided by the lashes verse.

According to what Allameh Tabatabai has said, and the majority of Qur’an interpreters o have said similar things, if Verse 2 of Nur was descended in order to strengthen the previous command there is no reason for the Legislator to avoid mentioning the punishment of stoning and only limit himself to lashing and give the responsibility of stoning (which is the harshest of death punishments) to others. Instead we can say that in such an important instance the Legislator has expressed the command himself and if there was a need for replacement he has done it himself so that the possibility of legislation in such an important instance is not given to others.

And if the verse was descended to lessen the previous punishment (life imprisonment), a harsher punishment such as execution or death by stoning cannot be rendered.

Accordingly, among the two verses generally seen as related to the punishment for adultery, only one remains. This is Verse 2 of Nur which commands 100 lashes for adulterous men and women. Whatever else beyond the 100 lashes has come in Islamic jurisprudence is based on several narrations but these have been questioned by several religious scholars and followers of hadith, such as Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Javad Gharavi, as having many weaknesses and deficiencies. According to Gharavi, the important point is that the aforementioned verse expresses a command and it is impossible for it to express only part of a command, leaving the rest unsaid and for the followers to complete.

Execution and capital punishment are the harshest of punishments and the Almighty himself says that the life of one person is equivalent to the life of a whole people and the murder of one is like commanding the slaying of a whole people (al-Ma’idah 32). How is it possible for the Almighty not to specify such a punishment, which is the worst kind of execution in the Qur’an, leaving it in the hands of others while there are many commands of milder punishments regarding other crimes in the Qur’an? Narrations and reports cannot replace the Qur’an. The importance of human life specified in Verse 32 of al-Ma’idah takes precedence. From another side, the narratives of stoning or other narratives quoting the Prophet who rejects killings accompanied with torture even for birds and insects, seeing them as the source of Almighty’s curse, are in evident contradiction to execution by stoning.

In addition the Mu’tazilites and Khawarej (two important sects in Islam) have from the beginning opposed stoning and their reasoning has been that at the outset of Islam stoning existed but the lashes verse voided this punishment. In addition, they argue such a punishment does not exist in the Qur’an and after the lashes verse the Prophet did not order the stoning of anyone. Of course some believe that even before Verse 2 of Nur, stoning as a punishment is not sanctioned.

Some interpreters and religious scholars have said that in stoning existed in the Qur’an but was voided (ibn Qadamah 7 and 156) and A’isha has been quoted to have said that stoning existed in al-Ahzab Sura but was dropped when Othman collected the verses of the Qur’an.

It seems that such a narration is completely false since first of all it is in clear contradiction to all other verses regarding the punishment for adultery. Secondly, its acceptance requires the acknowledgment that the Qur’an has been tampered with, a charge rejected by the majority of Muslims. Given the clear language of the Qur’an regarding the punishment for adultery and the authenticity and importance of the language of Qur’an about the importance of human life, how could we refer to a verse that neither exists nor its existence proven and merely rely on the words of some people who claim that such a verse did exist? Why doesn’t the existing language bring knowledge and proof or documentation while what is not in existence does?

Some, in order to give credibility to stoning in the face of lack of Qur’anic evidence, refer to the fact the caliphs engaged in stoning. But first of all their path (sunnah) cannot be considered the source of a command regarding the life of a human being. Secondly, according to Ayatollah Gharavi, that the caliphs engaged in stoning has not been proven. Thirdly, even if it was proven, the voiding of the holy book by the path of the caliphs is not proper. The sunnah, only if it is successively and with certainty related to the Prophet, can be considered a specification of a command and specification is different from voiding. Fourthly, such a specification can only limit the range of outcomes and exclude a person from the command. In other words, such specification can only delimit and not expand the command since the basic principle in Islam is not harshness and there are many verses and narrations associated with the religion that confirm this principle.

As such, the punishment of death for different kinds of adultery do not have Qur’anic backing and in various verses regarding prostitution and adultery there is merely reference to the indecency of the act and eternal torment associated with it and not capital punishment. In addition, as will be shown below, in traditional Islamic jurisprudence certain conditions have been specified that if not fulfilled, particularly since adultery is usually committed in private, punishment is irrelevant/useless. Another point is that this act has been identified by some as the right of God, which means that only God can unearth the true intentions behind it. With the exception of cases related to the immature and unwise, man cannot judge. This means that the excepted cases are not God’s right and create private rights.


Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence

Although stoning has no basis in the Qur’an but in traditional Islamic jurisprudence it is relied upon on the basis of ways of the Prophet (sunnah) in their many narrations and reports about the implementation of the sentence. Regulations regarding stoning in traditional Islamic jurisprudence are as follows. Each crime can be proven in two ways:

1. Sight
2. Confession

The proof of the crime of adultery through sight requires the fulfillment of certain conditions:

1. The accused must be married.
2. The accused must have access to the spouse.
3. The accused must be endowed with reason.
4. The accused must be mature.
5. The accused must be endowed with free will and engaged in the act without force.
6. The accused must be knowledgeable about the punishment.
7. The accused must be knowledgeable about the subject.
8. The claim to lack of knowledge about the punishment or subject in case the veracity of the claim is probable, without the existence of a witness, will be accepted upon the oath taken by the accused (Article 66, Civil Code)
9. Testimony of four men.
10. All four must be just.
11. Their justness must have been proven.
12. They must have witnessed the crime simultaneously.
13. They must testify simultaneously and if they did not witness the crime simultaneously or one testified later, all four are subject to lashes.
14. All the qualities and details of the testimony should be the same and if, for instance, one or two persons report from various places or angles, the crime is not proven.
15. The witnesses should testify willingly without any reservations.
16. Their testimonies should attest to them being witness to the act of adultery is its “completeness,” meaning that a thread cannot pass between the two bodies, so to speak.

All the 16 conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously for the crime to be proven. This is while the conditions of proof through sight (particularly the last one) are impossible to fulfill and indeed some religious scholars have considered such proof impossible. The question then arises regarding why such a harsh punishment has been forwarded at all. A possible answer is that in the past fourteen century, public opinion regarding the crime has been such that direct rejection of any punishment would not have been possible. Hence the Legislator has acted in such a way as to make the proof of the crime impossible and yet acknowledge the indecency of the act to which the society has been sensitive and say that if such a crime is proven, it is so abominable that it is deserving of such a punishment.

Bu the other way of proving the crime is confession. This approach is also as difficult since first no one voluntarily steps forward to confess to a crime that is considered so abominable in public opinion. Maturity, reason, free will, intent, and clarity are the five conditions for the veracity of the confession. Secondly, even assuming that a person confesses, the advice for the Islamic judge is to not accept the confession if possible. It is narrated that at the outset of Islam a man went to the Prophet and confessed to adultery. The Prophet rejected the confession, saying that he did not do such a thing. The man again insisted on his confession and the prophet again rejected his words, banished him, and assigned some individuals to investigate in his tribe and see if the man is endowed with reasonable faculties, hoping to use this excuse as a means to not implement the sentence. Everyone testified that he is endowed with reason. The man came back to the Prophet and insisted on his crime and finally the Prophet was forced to accept his confession. Assuming the veracity of the narration, this example shows that if exceptionally a person is found who confesses, as much as possible efforts should be made not to accept the confession. The key here is that the person must have confessed in a free environment, without force, and not in prison or under the pressure of interrogations or threats. As such on the basis of the mere fact that a person has confessed in an environment that is not free, we can question and reject the confession.

In addition, even if exceptionally a person is found that insists on his confession, a path for escape must be left open in the following ways:

1. The confession is null after denial. This means that whenever the person disavows his confession, the stoning sentence must be lifted (there are even narrations that suggest the ruler can pardon the adulterer without repentance).
2. In tradition Islamic jurisprudence the prevention of the sentence on the basis of any excuse is also allowed, as evidenced by Imam Ali’s words to a person sentenced to stoning that,” because you are young, there is no obstacle in showing mercy.”
3. If no excuses are found in preventing the sentence, then the lower part of the body should be placed in a pit in such a way so as to allow for the possibility of flight and if the person can get out, then he or she can no longer be punished.
4. Those who come to implement the sentence must be the most just among the pious.
5. They must not be polluted or in menstruation. This condition along the previous one overrules the condition of sufficient numbers for the implementation of the sentence.
6. Small stones must be used (perhaps in order for the person to be able to flee before serious injury).

Again it is important to reiterate that all these commands regarding stoning are based on the assumption of proof regarding a crime that according the discussed approaches in traditional Islamic jurisprudence cannot be proven

The viewpoint of Ayatollah Montazeri regarding adultery with a married woman can be considered a summary of the views expressed in traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In response to many inquiries by some followers as well as domestic and foreign human rights organizations and news outlets, he writes on 12 July 2007:

The sentence of stoning existed in the Torah in an extensive manner, but in Islam it only exists regarding adultery with a married woman under specific conditions and the way to prove it are: 1) Testimony of four just individuals who have witnessed the act with their own eyes, the realization of which is very unlikely; 2) The confession of the accused, repeated four times, in a free environment and atmosphere and not in prison or under pressure. And the implementation of the sentence immediately after the knowledge of the judge is problematic and what recently happened in Takistan is against the standards and if the individual after confession disavows the confession; the disavowal according Islamic jurisprudence is acceptable and in case of confession the individual has the right of flight and if he flees, his pursuit is not acceptable and if in a time or place the implementation of the sentence leads to the weakening of religion, its implementation must be avoided. Given the characteristics mentioned, in reality sentence of stoning is merely a scarecrow for people to abstain from a great sin.”

As such in traditional Islamic jurisprudence there is also no Qur’anic reasoning for stoning. The only reference is to the consensus of Islamic jurists and several narrations (not definite sunnah), with questions regarding both the realization of the consensus as well as the documented narrations. In any case, as it was mentioned above, some Islamic jurists do not consider reliance on narrations regarding the death sentence as acceptable.


Case Study

The stoning sentences implemented in Iran in the past few years have not only been against human dignity and human rights standards but also did not follow the legal standards of the traditional Islamic jurisprudence for the following reasons:

1. Individuals confessed under prison conditions and after abuse.
2. Their confessions were accepted easily and without much resistance.
3. Many of the individuals disavowed their confessions but the disavowals were not accepted.
4. There were many excuses and reasons that could have been used to null the sentence but attention was not given to these.
5. During the implementation of stoning the criteria of the presence of the most just, with due attention to purity, was not observed.
6. In many cases, officials of the government (in prison and among the police force) implemented the sentence.
7. It was observed that large stones, one of which sufficed for the killing, were used.
8. Individuals that were able to flee the pit were again placed in the pit in such a way to make flight impossible and be killed.

There are many examples of violations but here reference will only be made to the latest case of stoning in Takistan in the Qazvin province:

1. The woman who married Jafar (the man who was stoned) had run away from her husband who had forced her into prostitution in order to lead a more decent and healthy life.
2. This woman had filed for divorce from her previous husband.
3. The head of the judiciary had stopped the implementation of her stoning sentence and since this order was both legal and Islamic, it had enough weight to prevent his stoning as well.
4. Government officials participated in the implementation of the sentence.

The head of the Judiciary, using his legal authority, had ordered the stopping of the sentence implementation. As such the stoning of Jafar was effectively against the law and Islamic jurisprudence and could be considered intentional murder and deserving of punishment. If a student is charged for propaganda against the regime and imprisoned for just a slogan or a piece of writing that has very little impact, why shouldn’t an illegal and un-Islamic act that is used as evidence of murder against the Islamic Republic throughout the world not be punishable? If in the past, not on the basis of human rights standards but traditional Islamic jurisprudence, stoning was resisted and its implementers punished, today we would not be witnessing such illegalities. While today such harsh methods are used to confront the way women dress in the streets, very little sensitivity is shown to instances that deal with the lives and dignity of human beings. This shows that what is of concern is not really Islamic law but power. The government seems to perceive that since the basis for its legitimacy is religion, if some regulations are not implemented or are questioned, the basis for its political legitimacy is shaken and hence it cannot compromise and must go all the way even with sentences whose legality are questionable.


Interest of Islam

Let us assume that the strict regulations of traditional Islamic jurisprudence did not exist and proving adultery was easy, there is another principle that if the implementation of a command is not to the interest or benefit of Islam, it can be suspended. Ayatollah Khomeini, using the same principle, said that even prayer, which is one of the pillars of Islam, can be suspended because the main criterion is the interest of religion and not its commands. Of course the interest or expediency principle has been criticized for being temporary, requiring the return of the command when conditions change. But experience has shown that with major social changes the suspension of some commands on the basis of interest or benefit or Islam will not be temporary. Some interests such as those based on the achievements of human rights will be permanent.

A judge that is oblivious to the interest of the Islamic society and renders a judgment without taking it into account is not competent to judge. It is the truth and common interests that matter, not personal or trivial interests.


Legal Perspective

In studying many cases of adultery involving married women, I have found the main source to be the inadequacies of the legal system in Iran. In several cases, the forced marriages of daughters led to family murders and violence and in some other cases disobedience on the part of the wife and ultimately hidden or illicit relations with another man. In Iranian laws, the father’s agreement to marriage is required. This requirement can of course safeguard the rights of daughters in marriage but improper use of this requirement, particularly in rural areas and among the uneducated, has caused forced marriages for girls who at times are between 15 and 18 years old and forced to marry men of 50 or 60. In addition, lack of the right to divorce for women who are abused by their husbands forces them to put up with extremely difficult conditions. As a result, in recent years, for instance, we have been witness to a number of suicides in the Ilam Province. The large numbers of female suicides in Ilam (400 cases of self-burning, 300 of which were women) are largely caused by forced marriages, age difference between husbands and wives, and family violence.

The incident in Qazvin is another example. After fleeing from her first husband, Mokarameh files for divorce. Iranian courts usually do not respond to these divorce requests in the hope that with the passage of time a compromise is reached and there is no need for divorce. Accordingly, for several years Mokarameh’s request remains unanswered while in divorce cases the reasons for the filing for divorce, in this case her forced prostitution by her husband, should take priority. In reality, Jafar and Mokarameh could and should not have been convicted of adultery with a married woman essentially because her previous husband had forced her into prostitution and a man who forces his wife into such an unethical, illegal and un-Islamic situation essentially voids the marriage contract and the woman cannot be considered the legal and religious wife of the man.

The existence of such problems in the legal system of Iran, particularly regarding the rights of women, has created conditions for the emergence of many social problems. It could conceivably be said that some of the ones who commit family violence, flee, engage in honor killing or illicit relationships are themselves victims of a legal system in need of reform. Approaching the demand for reform politically only inhibits needed reforms. Some think that the acceptance of some legal reforms is backing down from the position of power. This is while there are disastrous consequences to the ignoring of legal reforms. At the same time, illogical approaches in the demand for legal reform that threaten those in power in ways that are not conducive to reform are also ultimately responsible in the prevention of necessary reform. There is a real need for dialogue, explanatory effort in convincing authorities regarding the need for the reform of the legal system and regarding women and children related laws.


Emotional Impact

Mokarameh, the woman sentenced to stoning in Qazvin, has four children from her previous husband and two from Jafar, one of whom is 11 years old. Eleven years has passed from the marriage of Jafar and Mokarameh, eight of which have been in prison awaiting execution by stoning. During this period, what has happened to their children? The young and innocent children who have no one to rely on and have to carry the heavy weight of their parents’ dishonored name? Can one expect these children to lead normal lives? The same situation applies to the parents of the convicted couple and their siblings? Think about similar heartrending and disastrous situations that have occurred many times over. Think about it for a second. If something similar happens to your family, what will happen? Do you think these events are occurrences that people are looking forward to or are willing to lay their lives for? Just think for a second about the incredibly destructive impact these sentences have on whole families? How could we easily pass by these painful incidences?


Historical and Sociological Perspective

Stoning, which prior to Islam was described in Judaic law and since it was mentioned in the Torah was implemented extensively, did not find its way into the Qur’an and was not affirmed by it. However, since it was among forceful societal traditions, its clear rejection was not possible. At the same time, stoning was prevalent in Europe, the United States, and Islamic societies for centuries after the outset of Islam. Stoning is among punitive laws that were prevalent throughout the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies until 18th century. In 17th century in some western societies capital punishment was handed out for adultery, including in the United States as reported by Alexis de Tocqueville. From the end of 18th century a new era identified by Durkheim as the age of reparation laws began, which today expands to half of the world. Under the previous age of punitive laws the objective was to impose pain, harm on the convicted, extracting vengeance, but in the new age the objective is to keep the criminal away from the society, preventing harm to the society, and also rehabilitating the criminal.

Islamic jurisprudence is also impacted by social conditions. According to Ayatollah Motahhari the fatwa of an urban Islamic jurist smells urban and the fatwa of a rural one smells rural. Accordingly, in the new age, stoning is not something popular or acceptable as evidenced by the refusal of people to be present at such events. And this is why many clear-sighted Islamic jurists consider it as detrimental to Islam. And it is on that basis that Ayatollah Shahrudi, the head of the Iran’s Judiciary, has ordered its suspension. What is astounding, however, is that the secretary for the Human Rights Headquarters of the Judiciary presents stoning as though is it among the integral commands of Islam, saying “we have to correctly justify stoning. We have made a revolution so that Islamic commands can be implemented…. We will never sacrifice Islam to the challenges related to human rights” (ILNA, 30 May 2007). Later he says, “Stoning is based on Islamic law and is not against or in opposition to any of the Islamic Republic’s international obligations.” (E’temad-e Melli, 15 July 2007).


Summing Up

Our criterion for judging stoning and other laws and commands is human rights. This criterion is based on a prior principle that human rights have no conflict with religion. In a prior juridical research which relied on the opinion of a well-known religious scholar, entitled Human Rights and Rights of the Pious, it was shown that the basis for Qur’anic thought is the belief in intrinsic human generosity and dignity. Hence Islamic jurisprudence or legal system must be formed on that basis. Although the implemented stoning sentences in recent years did not comply with the standards of traditional Islamic jurisprudence and even went against it, the point of this writing is to say that stoning has no Qur’anic basic, and is not to the interest of the society and Islamic principles We can and must abandon it as a punishment and its abandonment is in no way against religiosity or religion.

In many areas such as juridical commands and regulations regarding capital punishment, stoning, and minimum age for the criminal culpability for children we are in dire need of new interpretations (ijtihad). Islamic scholars who cannot practice new ijtihad regarding recent events and issues will disappear in history along with their ideas. The need is for the validation of human experience and beings and the reform of laws on that basis.

Death in Iran

The killing goes on; in China, Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States.
Thailand would be well out of it

Rule by a religious regime is autocracy. The papal states in Italy were notorious and the exercise of papal power led to a hatred of religion. Error has no rights and dissent is a moral crime. The State has the divine power of life and death over its inhabitants who are not citizens but subjects. The situation in present day Iran appears the same, as described by
German-Iranian writer Said:
"There are tendencies, sadly also fatal ones. Never has more alcohol been consumed, or more kids fallen into drug addiction. Nowhere in the Middle East are the mosques emptier than in Iran. This Islam, so vaunted as a panacea, cannot even get tomato prices under control. Those who came into power with their slogans against decadence and godlessness are now the reason why Islam is haemorrhaging believers. It is safe to say that Islam has never been more scorned in Iran than it is today."

Death Penalty in Thailand

ไม่มีความจำเป็นต้องมีโทษประหารชีวิต
เดวิด ที จอห์นสัน (David T Johnson)
(Bangkok Post, January 29, 2009)
โทษประหารชีวิตกำลังหายไปจากโลกนี้ ในปี ค.ศ. 1970 มีประเทศเพียง 21 ประเทศเท่านั้นที่ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต ปัจจุบันจำนวนประเทศที่ยกเลิกคือ 134 หรือสามในสี่ของประเทศในโลกทั้งหมด
โทษประหารชีวิตลดลงในทวีปเอเชียด้วย ครึ่งหนึ่งของประเทศยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต (เช่นในประเทศเขมร ภูฐาน และฟิลิปปินส์) หรือไม่ได้มีการประหารชีวิตมากว่า 10 ปีแล้ว (ประเทศลาวและพม่าไม่มีการประหารชีวิตมาตั้งแต่ปี ค.ศ. 1989)
ในบางด้าน ประเทศไทยดูเหมือนจะกำลังเข้าเป็นสมาชิกของกลุ่มยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต ประเทศไทยมีโทษประหารชีวิตในกฎหมายและศาลก็ยังสั่งลงโทษประหารชีวิตผู้กระทำผิด แต่การประหารชีวิตเกิดขึ้นน้อยมาก ส่วนมากเนื่องจากพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวพระราชทานอภัยโทษกับผู้ที่ถูกลงโทษเกือบทั้งหมด
ไม่มีการประหารชีวิตในประเทศไทยเลยใน 13 จาก 21 ปีที่ผ่านมานี้ และการประหารชีวิตครั้งสุดท้ายจาการฉีดยาเกิดขึ้นมานานกว่า 5 ปีมาแล้ว
ในระหว่างการเดินทางไปประเทศไทยเมื่อไม่นานมานี้ ผมได้มีโอกาสพูดคุยกับข้าราชการและนักกฏหมายเกี่ยวกับโทษประหารชีวิต ส่วนใหญ่กล่าวว่าประเทศไทยควรจะยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตและคงจะยกเลิกในที่สุด แต่ยืนยันว่าในปัจจุบันประเทศไทยยังควรจะคงโทษนี้ไว้ด้วยเหตุผลสองประการ
ประการที่หนึ่งคือความคิดเห็นของประชาชน การสำรวจความเห็นพบว่าคนไทยส่วนใหญ่สนับสนุนโทษประหารชีวิต และข้าราชการบางคนกล่าวว่ารัฐบาลควรจะคงไว้ซึ่งโทษประหารชีวิตตราบใดที่เสียงส่วนใหญ่สนับสนุนเพราะว่าประชาธิปไตยควรจะตอบสนองต่อความต้องการของประชาชน
ประสบการณ์จากประเทศอื่น ๆ เสนอว่าความเห็นแบบนี้เป็นการคิดตื้น ๆ เกินไป ประเทศที่ยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตทุกประเทศดำเนินการแม้ว่าในขณะนั้นประชาชนส่วนใหญ่จะสนับสนุนโทษนี้ การ”นำแถว”แบบนี้เกิดขึ้นเมื่อประเทศยุโรปตะวันตกยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตหลังจากสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง และกิดในลักษณะเดียวกันเมื่อประเทศยุโรปตะวันออกและยุโรปกลางยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตหลังการล่มสลายของสหพันธ์สาธารณรัฐโซเวียต
ถ้าผู้นำประเทศเหล่านั้นรอให้เสียงส่วนใหญ่ของประชาชนเปลี่ยนไปต่อต้านโทษประหารชีวิตก่อนจะดำเนินการ ประเทศในยุโรปส่วนใหญ่คงจะยังมีการใช้โทษประหารชีวิตอยู่ในปัจจุบัน
ในความเป็นจริง ทุกประเทศได้ยกเลิกโทษนี้แล้ว ยกว้นเพียงประเทศเดียวที่อยู่ภายใต้เผด็จการคือประเทศเบลารุส
เมื่อไรที่ประเทศไทยกำจัดโทษประหารชีวิตออกจากระบบ ประเทศไทยจะทำเช่นนั้นเพราะว่าผู้นำของปะเทศมองเห็นว่ามันเป็นสิ่งถูกต้องที่จะต้องทำไม่ว่าความเห็นของประชาชนจะว่าอย่างไรก็ตาม
ข้อคัดค้านข้อที่สองต่อการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตในประเทศไทยก็คือความเชื่อที่ว่าโทษประหารชีวิตยับยั้งการกระทำผิดได้ดีกว่าการจำคุกเป็นเวลานาน แต่การคิดเช่นนี้แสดงชัยชนะของความเชื่อเหนือตัวเลข เพราะว่าโทษประหารชีวิตมีความเกี่ยวข้องกับการควบคุมการกระทำผิดพอ ๆ กับการขอฝนมีความเกี่ยวข้องกับดินฟ้าอากาศ
เราลองมาพิจารณาหลักฐานบางชิ้นดู
ในประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาในปี ค.ศ. 2007 อัตราการเกิดการฆาตกรรมในรัฐที่มีการใช้โทษประหารชีวิตสูงกว่าในรัฐที่ไม่มีการใช้โทษนี้ถึง 42% ในเจ็ดทศวรรษที่ผ่านมานี้ อัตราการเกิดการฆาตกรรมของรัฐต่าง ๆ ของประเทศเป็นไปในทิศทางเดียวกันอย่างน่าสังเกตไม่ว่าจะมีการลงโทษประหารชีวิตกี่รายก็ตาม
ตั้งแต่ปี ค.ศ. 1976 เป็นต้นมา รัฐเท็กซัสได้ทำการประหารชีวิตนักโทษไปแล้วกว่า 250 ราย รัฐแคลิฟอร์เนีย 13 ราย และรัฐนิวยอร์คไม่มีการประหารเลย แต่อัตราคดีฆาตกรรมในรัฐทั้งสามคล้ายคลึงกันมากและเป็นไปตามแนวโน้มของประเทศ
ในภาพรวม รัฐของประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาได้ประหารชีวิตนักโทษไปกว่า 1,000คนตั้งแต่ปี ค.ศ. 1976 ในขณะที่ประเทศแคนาดาไม่มีการประหารชีวิตมาตั้งแต่ปี ค.ศ. 1972 แต่ทว่าอัตราคดีฆาตกรรมของทั้งสองประเทศมีแนวโน้มคล้ายคลึงกันมากในทศวรรษที่ตั้งแต่นั้นมา โดยที่อัตราของประเทศแคนาดาเป็นแค่หนึ่งในสามของประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาตลอดช่วงเวลาที่กล่าวถึงนี้
ความไร้ประสิทธิผลในการยับยั้งของโทษประหารชีวิตในบริบทของประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาได้ถูกสะท้อนในความเห็นของผู้เชี่ยวชาญต่าง ๆ
มีการศึกษาค้นคว้าหนึ่งที่ถามความเห็นของนักอาชญาวิทยา 67 คนว่าการวิจัยที่มีอยู่สนับสนุนการอ้างว่าโทษประหารชีวิตยับยั้งการกระทำผิดหรือไม่ กว่า 80% ตอบว่าไม่
ในการสำรวจความคิดเห็นของหัวหน้าตำรวจ 386 คนทั่วประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาพบว่าบางคนสนับสนุนโทษประหารชีวิตด้วยเหตุผลทางปรัชญา (เช่น เป็นการตอบแทนการกระทำผิด) แต่เกินกว่าสองในสามยอมรับว่าเป็นการยับยั้งที่ไม่ได้ผล
ผลการยับยั้งการกระทำผิดของโทษประหารชีวิตไม่มีให้เห็นในทวีปเอเชียด้วยเช่นกัน
ใน 50 ปีที่ผ่านมา อัตราคดีฆาตกรรมในประเทศญี่ปุ่นลดลง 80% ไม่มีประเทศอื่นที่มีการลดลงมากเท่านี้และการลดลงนี้ไม่สามารถจะอ้างได้ว่าสืบเนื่องมาจากนโยบายด้านโทษประหารชีวิตของประเทศญี่ปุ่นเพราะว่านโยบายนี้ได้ลดความรุนแรงลงมากหลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง
หลักฐานที่น่าเชื่อถือที่สุดอาจจะมาจากประเทศฮ่องกงและสิงคโปร์ ประเทศที่เป็นเมืองขนาดใหญ่ที่คล้ายคลึงกันมากในหลาย ๆ ด้านทางสังคม, วัฒนธรรม, และเศรษฐกิจ
ประเทศทั้งสองนี้แตกต่างกันอย่างมากด้านนโยบายโทษประหารชีวิต การประหารชีวิตครั้งสุดท้ายในฮ่องกงเกิดขึ้นในปี ค.ศ. 1966 (หนึ่งปีหลังจากหระเทศอังกฤษหยุดการประหารชีวิต) และฮ่องกงยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตทางกฎหมายในปี ค.ศ. 1993
ในทางตรงกันข้าม สิงคโปร์ได้ชื่อว่าเป็นประเทศที่ใช้โทษประหารชีวิตอย่างจริงจังที่สุดในโลกประเทศหนึ่ง ในกลางทศวรรษ 1990 ประเทศสิงคโปร์ประหารชีวิตนักโทษต่อปีเป็นจำนวน 20 ถึง 25 เท่าของการประหารชีวิตในเมืองฮุสตัน ซึ่งเป็นเมืองในประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาที่มีขนาดพอ ๆ กัน และเป็นเมืองที่มีการใช้กฎหมายประหารชีวิตอย่างจริงจังที่สุดในรัฐที่มีการใช้โทษประหารชีวิตจริงจังที่สุด(รัฐเท็กซัส)ของประเทศประชาธิปไตยที่มีการใช้โทษประหารชีวิตจริงจังที่สุดในโลก
สิงคโปร์มีการประหารชีวิตนักโทษ 76 รายในปี ค.ศ. 1994 ซึ่งมากกว่าการประหารชีวิตทั้งหมดของประเทศญี่ปุ่น(ซึ่งมีประชากรมากกว่า 30 เท่า) ในช่วงเวลา 30 ปีตั้งแต่ ค.ศ. 1997 ถึง 2006
แม้ว่านโยบายด้านโทษประหารชีวิตจะแตกต่างกันอย่างสิ้นเชิง อัตราคดีฆาตกรรมของสิงคโปร์และฮ่องกงเป็นไปในทิศทางเดียวกันตลอด 35 ปีที่ผ่านมา ยิ่งไปกว่านั้น แม้ว่าอัตราการประหารชีวิตในสิงคโปร์จะลดลงในสองสามปีที่ผ่านมา (มีการประหารชีวิตเพียงห้าครั้งในปี ค.ศ. 2006 และสองครั้งในปี 2007) แต่อัตราคดีฆาตกรรมกลับลดลงอย่างต่อเนื่อง
ถ้าไม่มีหลักฐานใด ๆ ที่จะแสดงว่าโทษประหารชีวิตยับยั้งคดีฆาตกรรมในสิงคโปร์ อะไรที่จะเป็นรากฐานของสมมุติฐานที่ว่ามันจะเป็นจริงในเมืองอื่น ๆ เช่นกรุงเทพ ฯ หรือเชียงใหม่ ที่ซึ่งโอกาสการรับโทษประหารชีวิตมีน้อยกว่าด้วยซ้ำ
ผู้ร่างนโยบายควรจะใช้ความจริงไม่ใช่ความเชื่อเป็นพื้นฐาน
ในส่วนที่เกี่ยวข้องกับโทษประหารชีวิต หลักฐานมีมากและชัดเจนว่าโทษนี้ไม่สามารถยับยั้งการกระทำผิดได้มากกว่าการจำคุกระยะยาว
สำหรับประเทศไทย ทั้งหมดนี้หมายความว่าความจำเป็นที่จะต้องควบคุมอาชญากรรมไม่ใช่สิ่งที่จะกีดขวางการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิต ความเห็นของประชาชนก็ไม่ใช่เช่นกัน สิ่งเดียวที่ขวางยกเลิกสถาบันของการฆ่าโดยไม่จำเป็นนี้ก็คือจิตวิญญาณทางการเมือง
เดวิด ที จอห์นสัน เป็นศาสตราจารย์ทางสังคมศาสตร์ของมหาวิทยาลัยฮาวาย และเป็นผู้ร่วมแต่งหนังสือ (ร่วมกับ Franklin E Zimring) เรื่อง “The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia” ซึ่งได้ตีพิมพ์เดือนนี้โดยสำนักพิมพ์ Oxford University Press

The Next Frontier

‘The Next Frontier – National Development, Political Change and the Death Penalty in Asia’
David T. Johnson and Franklin E. Zimring
Oxford University Press, 2009
522 + xviii pages, price 35 US$

‘Whether the death penalty is retained in law or practice is one of the prime indicators of the level of democratization and civilization of a country’
Kim Dae Jung, ex-President of Korea and Noble Prize Laureate, in Foreword to ‘The Next Frontier’

‘The Next Frontier’ is a handbook that contains an immense amount of data on the death penalty in Asia, usually updated to 2008, making it an essential reference work. For whom? Well, no doubt for scholars to whom the authors issue invitations to progress further in areas where they indicate topics of further interest. But the clear and accessible style render it of use to all those concerned with the death penalty, especially to those in government, legal personnel, and above all to activists engaged in the struggle to banish the death penalty from society. A Philippine lawyer who was involved with an association of the relatives of the condemned told me of the interest and ability of those with little formal education who were motivated to consult and use, on their own initiative, even scholarly works on the death penalty. The present work can add to the armoury of such involved persons.

The book consists of three parts and seven appendices. The first part considers ‘Issues and Methods’, providing an overall survey of the extent and practice of capital punishment in Asia. A second part consists of ‘National Profiles’ of the practice of the death penalty in Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. A final section draws lessons from the case studies, and comments on the pace of change and prospects for abolition in the region. Shorter summaries of the death penalty in North Korea, Hong Kong and Macao, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and India are consigned to appendices, as is a discussion of extrajudicial killing, which often surpasses the rate of judicial killing in Asia. While lacking the detail of the nation profiles, the appendices provide valuable and accurate summaries.

What Difference Does the Death Penalty Make?

In Thailand, we are assured by Government officials that the death penalty is necessary to deter serious crime. Mostly unaware of the change of thinking which has led to a majority UN vote of 106 to 46 in favour of a universal moritorium on Capital Punishment, they adhere to a US support of the practice. Thai executioners have even learned the barbarous skill of lethal injection from US instructors, arguing that the replacement of the awful death by injected poisons is more humane than that inflicted by machine gun fire.
It has long been proposed that the true deterrence to crime is not execution but the probability of arrest and prosecution. States that abolish the death penalty do not fall apart, crime rates do not rise chaotically. A persuasive study has become available of the effect of abolition of the death penalty in Hong Kong in 1994 on Homicide Rates as displayed in the above statistical graph. Clearly there is no noticeable rise in homicide rate at the vertical line which marks the year of abolition.

The study on which this and the following item are based, was introduced to a meeting of BagFree by visiting Professor David T. Johnson of the University of Hawaii, author of a forthcoming book on the death penalty in Asia (Oxford University Press)

Effects of Abolishing the Death Penalty II.

A Hardly Noticeable Difference

Singapore and Hong Kong are twin cities, comparable to each other in almost every way. While the population of Hong Kong is greater, population densities, population growth, levels of education, and per capita income are practically the same. However, Singapore believes that public security requires it to impose the death penalty at the highest rate in the world per million population. Hong Kong abolished the death penalty in 1994. The graph at the head of this post reveals that the death penalty has had no effect in reducing the rate of homicide in Singapore over that in Hong Kong, in the period since 1994. The knowledge that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent has lead the majority of the world's nations to abandon this barbarous practice. Perhaps the death penalty is retained by Singapore in support of a policy of social intimidation. At any rate it clings to a practice and mode of execution which it learned from its western colonial masters. Ironically, it now argues that abolition would be an imposition of western domination!

Execution of Bali Bombers

On the morning of the 8th November the three men found guilty of the Bali bombings were executed simultaneously in Indonesia.
Relatives of the victims have different reactions to the executions.
In a BBC interview, Australian Brian Deegan spoke of the execution of the murderers of his son Joshua. Brian is a barrister and former magistrate in Adelaide, Australia.

He said that his son's death had been an event beginning and now ending in violence.
"Capital punishment should be forbidden. It is wrong, illegal. It has no utilitarian purpose and is an abject failure as a deterrence. Only vengeance is served"

"The murderers should be punished by life imprisonment". In his opinion the three appeared to be simpletons who put on a show of bravery for display.

What Buddhist monks really think about death penalty

On 7th October we held the final of a series of seminars with Buddhist monks in Chachongsao Province, Thailand, on the death penalty. The following are comments of the monks taken from feedback forms.

“Buddhism does not support the death penalty, but concerning the abolition of the death penalty there must be a fixed standard which creates confidence that crime and the transgression of the human rights of others will decrease and be eliminated from world society. However there is no teaching in Buddhism which concerns the existence or non-existence of the death penalty. The important point therefore is what is acceptable to society as a suitable punishment.”

“The matter of the death penalty is a complex issue, and every position on the matter has its limitations. From the point of view of society the death penalty appears necessary or there will be no fear of wrong doing.
From a Buddhist viewpoint the death penalty should be abolished and be replaced by life imprisonment. Those already sentenced would not be executed but their human rights are restricted. Imprisonment is a restriction of independence and its form should measure the seriousness of the crime. It is a retribution for the crime committed.”

“Can we deduce some standard from the use of capital punishment in the past. There must be a clearly defined penalty for the most serious crimes, such as life imprisonment or other punishment.
Executions should be abolished, they serve no purpose. It is better to give an opportunity (for reform).
In the event that the death penalty is maintained, the law is the law, punishment is punishment. It is better that the authorities concentrate on other issues; education, the reduction of violence, the environment, the economy.”

“This project is of great importance in promoting abolition of the death penalty; capital punishment is absolutely incapable of reducing crime. Instead ethics and moral standards should be improved.
I believe that the death penalty should be abolished, its effects are bad rather than good. The effect on relatives of the executed person is devastating, I cannot stop pitying them. I devote my life to teaching Buddhism to solve the problems, but it is a difficult task.
The maximum sentence should be life imprisonment.”

“Another seminar should be organized to give more information on this matter”

“The arguments we have heard and the various viewpoints are consistent, but opposed in some ways. However, I agree that there should not be a death penalty. But my viewpoint is that before the death penalty is abolished altogether its application should be restricted so that the importance of life be fully realised. I would not like to see the death penalty looked on as a small matter. Before a final abolition it should be discussed from many angles and at many levels. If possible the decision should be made at a world level.”

“Buddhism should play a leading role in defining the human condition”

“While it is true that Buddhism does not support the death penalty, the people too should have a role in upholding the law.
• Some monks have a different viewpoint to others. If there is no standard, each one will think that his own opinion is correct and that of others is wrong; thus confusion arises and people cause hurt to each other.
• The good should be encouraged for the good are often at a disadvantage. ‘Severe punishment for great crime, lesser punishment for smaller crime’
• ‘All living creatures live according to their fate’

“The matter of Buddhism and the death penalty is a matter of fate, fate due to past deeds, the present and the future. To solve the problem of the death penalty we must deal with fate. Buddhist monks teach of fate, whether good or bad. Good action can overcome bad fate, and the question of the death penalty no longer remains. This is my opinion following the teaching of Buddha. In this matter one cannot appeal to rights. If we cooperate together to teach morality and its practice to the people so that they act well, the matter of abuse of human rights will no longer be relevant.”

“If the death penalty is abandoned there must be some substitute action, especially study. Morality must be included in the syllabus. One may speak about it, but its implementation is something else and human rights are invoked. Monks and teachers wish to teach their students to be good but they fail as they do not have a suitable syllabus. In fact we have such a syllabus but we do not have the opportunity to follow it. We are under the control of others who use their power for their own benefit. If we come into conflict with such private interests we can do nothing. For example, I teach mathematics but when I wish to teach the matter of religious practice I must do so outside the school, or try to organize a special camp. When the children do not attend they cannot be faulted. If there is no provision in the curriculum to teach moral duties, how can it be done?”

“This has been a very good seminar because it deals with an important aspect of humanity. If there is an opportunity I would like to participate again. May I confirm that the Buddhist religion is against the death penalty.”

“The subject matter is good but it is not suitable for monks and their disciples as it is not part of the monastic code“

“Buddhism does not agree with the execution of people”

“Buddhism teaches forgiveness, not the killing of people. It is therefore against the death penalty”

“In Buddhist teaching the killing of a living creature is prohibited. The death penalty is therefore excluded from Buddhism. Seminars such as this one should be organized on a wide scale for ordinary people, for government officials, for politicians, and for those who write the laws.”

“The content of this seminar is good, and I wish well to the organizers. Those who support the seminar are also very good. I would like to see knowledge on this issue being widely proclaimed in society”

“The subject matter of the seminar is good. The monks and novices derived knowledge on attitudes throughout the world. But it will take time for the death penalty to be rejected by society, greater study and more information are required”

“Shackling is necessary but the death penalty should be abolished because even though the condemned person has committed crime, reform should be allowed to occur”

“One must distinguish between punishment and religion, because the world is full of evil people”

“Buddhism should be the national religion, and designated as such in the Constitution. The death penalty should be abolished as it is against religion”

“Religion and worldly matters should be separate”

“An important basis of religion is the prohibition on killing of any creature. Such killing is a sin, whether it is of an animal or a person. Buddhism therefore is against the death penalty”

“It would be better to organize such a seminar for those having political power rather than for monks”

“Religion teaches people to be good and the forgiveness of those who do evil. Thus there should not be a death penalty”

“Concerning abolition of the death penalty, I believe that it will take time to bring about understanding in every part of society regarding the importance of being merciful and of extending kindness”

“The holding of this seminar is good. It should be repeated in temples where there are monks and novices”

“I agree with abolition of the death penalty. It has no part in Buddhism”

“If the death penalty is to be abolished the issue must be studied further by the people”

“If the death penalty is abolished, what punishment will be substituted? If there is not an appropriate punishment people will not be deterred from doing evil.”

“It is necessary to shackle prisoners to stop them escaping. As for the death penalty, it is in contradiction to Buddhism. But whether it is abolished or not is a matter of the law”

10th October 2008: World Day against Death Penalty

European Union
Delegation of the European Commission to Thailand

Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner calls for continued effort to achieve universal abolition of death penalty
10th October 2008

On the occasion of the World and European Day against the Death Penalty European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner said: "I am proud of the EU's leading role in the international efforts to abolish the death penalty. Although over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, the global figures for its use remain much too high. I fully recognize the plight of victims of violent crime, but the death penalty is not the solution. On the contrary, it only serves to aggravate a culture of violence and retribution. The Commission is determined to work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty through all available diplomatic channels and as a leading donor in this field.
A culmination of the EU's efforts, actively supported by states from all regions of the world, was the adoption of the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2007.

EU encourages public debate, strengthening public opposition and putting pressure on retentionist countries to abolish the death penalty, or at least introduce a moratorium as a first step. The EU also acts against the death penalty in multilateral fora, such as the United Nations; a culmination of this effort was the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18th December 2007. The EU's political commitment has been matched by substantial financial support for concrete projects, given that the death penalty is one of the priorities under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
* 92 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes
* 10 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes
* 35 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice. They retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or practice of not carrying out executions.
This makes a total of 137 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Since 2005, ten countries have abolished the death penalty.

However, figures of death penalty application around the world still remain high. During 2007, at least 1,252 people were executed in 24 countries, and at least 3,347 people were sentenced to death in 51 countries. 88 per cent of all known executions took place in five countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA. The EU's action, as the worldwide leader on the fight against death penalty, remains urgent and necessary.

Under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, more than 15 million euros have been allocated to support civil society projects since 1994, aimed at raising public awareness in retentionist countries through public education, outreach to influence public opinion, studies on how states' death penalty systems comply with international minimum standards, informing and supporting strategies for replacing the death penalty and efforts for securing the access of death row inmates to appropriate levels of legal support and training for lawyers.

For more information:
http://ec.europa.er/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/worldwide/eidhr/index_en.htm

Revival of Death Penalty in Philippines?

Philippine House of Representatives House Bill 4882 is entitled, 'An Act Restoring the Death Penalty Repealing R.A. No. 9346 and for other purposes'. It was filed on 31st July by Congressman Representative Bienvenido M. Abante of the 6th District Manila. The Bill is currently under the Committee on the Revision of Laws.
Congressman Abante is a pastor of the Metropolitan Bible Baptist Church. Bill 4882 seeks to revoke the law that repealed the death penalty. If the Bill succeeds up to 1000 prisoners will again be on Death Row, awaiting execution.

Seminar on Religious Aspects of Death Penalty

Seminar in Office of National Human Rights Commission 15th, 16th July

This seminar was planned to be a presentation of the points of view expressed in the earlier seminars devoted to Buddhist and Muslim perspectives on the death penalty and to provide a forum for discussion on the relevance of these perspectives to abolition of the death penalty in Thailand. Noteworthy speakers from the earlier seminars were selected to summarise the various religious perspectives, to be followed by a general discussion of the consequences for the movement towards abolition in Thailand. The intended audience were the donor embassies of the project, influential religious leaders in the Bangkok region, representatives of the Government ministries and agencies relating to the death penalty, the media, NGO representatives, academics, and interested members of the public.

The seminar was graciously addressed by His Excellency Dr. Friedrich Hamburger, Ambassador of the European Union who emphasised the universal human interest of the topic and the aspect of human dignity even in the most conspicuous criminal. He recalled the attribution of capital punishment to a divine lawmaker in the beginning of history and the pivotal relegation of the matter to civil authority, except in the Muslim world, by the words of Christ, ‘Leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

He recalled the justification of Punishment under the headings of:

1. Deterrence; 2. Rehabilitation; 3. Prevention of repeat offence.
   

In the case of Capital Punishment, 1. was ineffective, 2. was very limited, while 3. might be 100% effective.

However, application of the death penalty is always cruel and degrading. And it is degrading both to the person executed and to the executioner. The degradation extends to every participant in the process of execution, up to the highest level.

His Excellency asked, that given human fallibility, how many mistakes have been made in wrongful execution.

M. Pascal La Deunff, representative of the Embassy of France, also addressed the seminar, recalling that the death penalty had, in practice, been used to punish crimes but also to suppress dissent by minorities and the poor. He pointed to the significant contribution of Robert Badinter who as French Minister of Justice, promoted abolition of the death penalty in France in 1981 by affirming that the human passion to crime cannot be stopped by fear of the death penalty. While some of those condemned are entirely guilty, a system of justice without mistake is not possible. He recalled that the religious prohibition, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ found expression in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed in Paris in 1948, ‘Everyone has the right to life’. But the perspective is different.

The Buddhist perspective on the death penalty was presented by the Reverend Phra W. Wesinmethi from Wat Suan Dork, Chiangmai.

He recalled that the mission of Buddhism is to promote happiness and peace among human beings. The Buddha taught that every living thing has a right to life, that even thinking of harming a living being is a mistake. In Buddhist thinking the source of evil is in harmful thought. Harmful thought leads to bad speech, and thence to bad action. Crime cannot be prevented by fear of death, but may be stopped by shame. It is otherwise impossible to stop harmful thought leading to crime. Killing cannot be approved, execution as a legal process is no different from illegal crime. The rejection of killing by Buddhism is uncompromising.

Related to this absolute rejection of capital punishment on Buddhist principles is the belief that any prisoner can change and reform. The often repeated story of the conversion of the killer Angulimala, enshrines the Buddhist teaching; the most notorious killer is capable of reform.

Buddhist belief results in a practical programme of reform to avoid killing:

1. Develop the virtuous quotient of life, moral practice, fullness of mind, body and speech;
2. Develop the professional quotient, the ability to earn a living; poverty can lead to a return to crime
3. Develop the mental quotient, right thought, right speech, and right action
4. Develop the intelligence quotient; delusion and not nature is the cause of evil.

The way of compassion consists in offering these four ways to the wrongdoer.

In summary, Buddhism combines a total prohibition on killing, which implies a rejection of the death penalty, with a programme of enlightenment which will lead the wrongdoer to reform.

Mr. Withaya Wisethrat, Muslim Centre of Thailand

Islam is not just a religion but a way of life for humanity. The whole human family is descended from Adam. Muslims are those who follow the way of Islam as preached by Mohammad. Islam takes form from the interior of man, extends to the family, the nation, the world. For the Islamic way of life to flourish there is need of regulation and security in society. Sharia is the system of law which is derived from belief. Muslim acceptance of the death penalty is based on the revealed word of Allah as recorded in the Koran which cannot be cancelled. The death penalty is mandated for premeditated homicide, for the adultery of a married person, for abandoning religion, and for spying in time of war. However, the requirements of evidence are strict, there must be four witnesses. Lack of intention can allow release of the prisoner and depends on the wisdom of the judge. Capital punishment is required to ensure the security of society.

But Islam also allows the intervention of mercy, relatives of an innocent victim may pardon the killer if he is truly repentant, and accept restitution and alternative punishment.

But the death penalty is only one part of Muslim law and in Thailand Muslims form a minority. They follow the laws of the State and would not protest if the death penalty were abolished. In fact there are many faults in the administration of Thai justice; the poor and the innocent are often victims. In such a situation it were better that the death penalty be abolished. The same argument was used by Buddhist speakers in a demand that Law accord with morality.

Further reflection on the state of Thai legal practice were presented by Mr. Tanadech Kantachote who graduated in law while imprisoned in Bang Kwang prison. He related cases he had known of wrongful conviction. In one example, police were ordered to make an arrest in a case involving a bomb attack against a police station in Haadyai. They arrested an innocent man who had helped rescue victims of the attack - Mr. Tanadech explained that in the Thai legal system the protestation of innocence of a poor and near illiterate villager is worth little in face of police assertion of guilt. Apart from the police witness there was no other evidence, but the accused was found guilty in the first court. However, the accused had been accompanied at the time of the bombing by his nine year old daughter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the case in the absence of real evidence, by refusing to accept that a person carrying a bomb would have brought with him a nine year old daughter.

Condemned persons are permanently shackled and sleep 20 persons together in a room measuring approximately 3 metres by 4 metres. Those executed are the most unfortunate with little access to legal representation.

He pointed out that the argument favouring the death penalty as a preventive against repeating a crime ignores the fact that repetition of crime occurs in such minor crimes as small robberies, but very rarely in cases of serious crime.

In the current series, no seminar was conducted on the Christian attitude to the death penalty but it was appropriate to include consideration of such an aspect in this seminar devoted to comparison of religious aspects. The speaker was Ms. Sylvie Bukhari de Pontual

President of the International Federation of

Catholic Action for penalty (FIACT)

Ms. Sylvie related the long road followed by Christian believers to a present majority support for abolition. The Christian religion is unique in having a founder who was arrested, accused, tortured, condemned to death, and executed. By reaction, early Christians were for four centuries totally opposed to the death penalty. Finally, as Christians achieved acceptance in the State of Rome they accepted the death penalty in Roman legislation, recognizing the Old Testament approval of capital punishment. It was only in the 13^th century that the first voice was raised against capital punishment by a Christian sect, which recalled the words of Jesus Christ, ‘I do not want the death of a sinner…’. The outstanding theologian Thomas Aquinas favoured the death penalty for the protection of society. Rejection to the death penalty grew, and was voiced in the 17^th century by George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement, ‘Life is blessed by God’. In the 18^th century Caesare Baccaria published an influential work on the concept of punishment, where he stated that the certainty of punishment, not the death penalty, was an effective deterrent.

From that time, beginning with the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1786, states began to abolish the death penalty. Today, apart from some evangelical churches who take inspiration from the Old Testament, such as the Southern Baptists in the US, almost all Christians oppose the death penalty. The World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church have made the strongest declarations against Capital Punishment. The clearest statement was made by Cardinal Martino in a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1999, ‘The right to life is a right of a human being’. In Christian thinking moral education and good policing must support legal abolition of the death penalty.

The long history of the growth of Christian opposition to the death penalty illustrates the immense task involved in changing human perception and the need for great patience in its achievement.

Further accounts of Buddhist and Muslim perspectives were offered which will be included in the detailed publication of the contents of this seminar.

Another highlight of the seminar was the talk by M. Michel Forst on International Law relating to the death penalty and the recent vote on a Moratorium in the UNGA. His theme was that the death penalty is a breach of international human rights. He linked the increase in the number of countries choosing abolition, to the development of human rights in the 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 60 years ago eight countries had abolished the death penalty, while today 133 countries have done so.

There are two fundamental human rights involved, the right to life, and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The death penalty is a premeditated killing of a prisoner for the purpose of punishment. As such it is the ultimate denial of the dignity and worth of the human person. Such is the human rights case against the death penalty.

Michel Forst traced the development of human rights standards on the death penalty through a progressive restricting of the number of offences for which the penalty might be imposed. A definitive ruling is given in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ‘sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes’. Further clarification has narrowed this limitation to premeditated homicide. ‘Economic crimes and drug-related offences’ cannot be considered as being ‘most serious crimes’. It is significant that in the Statute of the Treaty of Rome the death penalty is not provided for what are arguably the most heinous crimes of all – genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Regarding the process of abolition, the speaker pointed out that the decision to abolish the death penalty has to be taken by the government and the legislators. This decision does not depend on a majority of the public being in favour of abolition. Nevertheless, statements from religious leaders and other respected public figures can create a moral climate in which legislators may dare to act without the support of majority opinion. The international dimension allows countries to learn from other countries experience.

The majority vote by the United Nations General Assembly on 18^th December of last year in favour of a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty carries considerable moral and political weight. It places an obligation on all member states to review their use of the death penalty and is an incentive to work towards abolition.

The final programme of the seminar was a discussion of the status of the movement to abolition in Thailand. It was agreed that the defective state of the Thai justice system is both a strong argument in favour of abolition, but also reason to doubt the effectiveness of life sentencing which would replace the death sentence. Both Buddhists and Muslims agreed on the need for a moral renewal in society as basis for a more just legal system.

It appears that there is massive support for the death penalty, in the belief that it is an effective deterrent of serious crime. Up to 84% of Bangkokians favour capital punishment and more than 80% of Buddhist monks. The foundations of the majority opinion appear to be an unfounded acceptance of capital punishment as an effective deterrent, a culture of authoritarianism, an expectation of vengeance, and little appreciation of mercy and forgiveness.

Steps towards abolition are the effort to limit the application of the death penalty; at present 47 different kinds of crime can incur capital punishment. Life imprisonment must be seen to be real and the problem of violence in society must be tackled. The religious aspect explored in the present seminars has an important role in helping change.

Stoning in Iran - 9 Adulterers to die

On 12th July UCL held a one day seminar with Muslim scholars and people in Bangkok on Muslim perspectives on the death penalty. The stringent requirements for four witnesses and a just process were emphasized as necessary elements in a Muslim system of justice. However, the practice in Iran today is very different. It is reported that 9 adulterers are due to be stoned at any time. The case is carried by several news agencies. The following is a report in the UK Telegraph.

"Shadi Sadr, a lawyer and women's rights activist, said the nine were convicted of adultery in separate cases in different Iranian cities.

"Their verdicts are approved, and they may be executed at any time," she said, adding that trial protocol was not applied properly in the cases.

Six of the nine were convicted based solely on judges' decisions with no witnesses or the presence of their lawyers during their confessions, she said.

Most of the nine come from areas of Iran that have low rates of literacy and some did not understand the cases against them, she said. One had pleaded guilty to adultery even though she did not know the meaning of the charge.

The nine are between 27 and 50 years old, among them a male music teacher who was convicted of adultery for having an affair with one of his students, the activists said.

"We are trying to stop the implementation of their verdicts. And secondly, we want to amend the country's penal law, in which death by stoning is prescribed," she said.

Under Iran's Islamic laws, adultery in the only capital offence punishable by stoning. Other capital offences in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, drug trafficking, prostitution, treason and espionage.

The punishment is also applied in some other countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Nigeria.

A man is usually buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck. Those carrying out the verdict then throw stones until the condemned dies.

Stoning was widely imposed in the early years after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. But in recent years, it has seldom been applied, though the government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences. The last stoning death confirmed by the government was in July last year."

Muslim Perspectives on the Death Penalty

On Saturday 12th July 30 participants gathered in a seminar held in the Foundation of Islamic Centre of Thailand to discuss Muslim Perspectives on the Death Penalty. The position of Thai Muslims can be summarised in the statement of a Thai Muslim lawyer:
"Muslims cannot abandon the death penalty"
While this may appear to be an uncompromising stand there were interesting aspects to the seminar. Pairoj Pholphet, secretary general of UCL remarked that the occasion was unique, it being most unusual for Thais to exchange beliefs. There were expressions which suggest approaches to further discussion on the issue.
"Islam belongs to everybody, not just to Muslims"
"Punishment is between humans, not between God and man"
" There is a traditional belief that if punishment is evaded in this life, then it will come in the next"
"On the value of a moral act: A prostitute who gives water to drink to a dog may thereby earn heaven"

To Moslems the imported legal systems of the west found in most countries are not their affair, although such laws must be obeyed. They look to the establishment of a sharia system of law. Capitalism is a religion with its own morality where consumption and exploitation of others are part of an accepted moral code.

Second Seminar on Buddhist Perspectives on Death Penalty

Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University Ubon Ratchathani

On 7th July, UCL organized the second of a series of seminars on religious aspects of the death penalty. The seminar took place in Wat Mahasawatnakphutaram of Ubon Ratchathani. 80 monks from throughout the province attended the one day seminar.

The topic was novel to most of the monks. Some were strongly in favour of abolition, others believed that the death penalty was karma due to bad actions; a middle group believed that a reform of society on Buddhist principles would make the death penalty superfluous. But all welcomed the opportunity to hear new viewpoints and discuss various aspects.

In summary, these monks subscribe to a basic Buddhist ethic. Good comes to those who do good, evil to those who do evil. If people listen to the teaching of the Buddha and follow the five basic precepts all evil will be eliminated from society. If not, they deserve their fate, including the death penalty. Nevertheless, compassion for oneself and others must be the basis of individual behaviour. There are unresolved issues in renouncing responsibility for the actions of government and society.

A Thai Buddhist Perspective on the Death Penalty

On Monday 30th June the first of a series of seminars on religious perspectives on the death penalty was held in Wat Suan Dok, a campus of Mahachulalongkorn Buddhist University, Chiangmai. 34 monks participated and several civilians. There follows a summary of the discussions.

1. All speakers recognized that capital punishment contravened the basic Buddhist prohibition against killing, ‘even of a mosquito’ in the words of one speaker.

“The death penalty is a concept that humans have created”

“If we wish to promote Buddhism, and are Buddhists, we should abolish the death penalty to follow the Buddha.”

2. The punishment of criminal offences is considered the responsibility of civil authorities, and therefore ‘political’. As political matters were considered to be strictly outside the sphere of interest of Buddhist monks, the issue of the death penalty was avoided. One speaker recalled an old prohibition by which a monk could not walk in an area where executions were carried out but must detour to avoid any incursion into such a civic location. This attitude throws light on the apparent indifference of Thai monks to the death penalty which is so at variance with their beliefs. (There also appeared little sympathy among Thai monks for the ‘political’ involvement of their compatriots in Burma. A prominent Vietnamese monk remarked to me once his incomprehension of the lack of involvement of Thai monks in social issues. The interest of the speakers at the seminar in the death penalty may be a relic of a now forgotten militancy of monks in the northern region)
3. However, Buddhism places a high value on repentance and reform of life. Pivotal to this attitude is the lesson conveyed in the story of Angulimala, the criminal who had killed 999 people before attempting to kill his own mother and the Buddha. Under the influence of the Buddha, Angulimala repented, changed his life and entered the monkhood. The peaceful outcome of the story is heightened by contrasting the reform of the robber murderer due to the Buddha’s teaching in contrast to the failed attempt of the king and his soldiers to eliminate him by force.
4. Buddhism does not see the death penalty as an isolated issue but rather as a failure to resolve problems in the whole of society. If peace and harmony were established in society, capital crimes would no longer be committed, and the death penalty would no longer be an issue. Abolition of the death penalty must be accompanied by a vast effort to reform society.
5. The monks were very conscious of the immense deficiencies in the Thai legal system, such as in the absence of an investigation into the deaths of human rights defenders (including a famous Chiang Mai activist monk), wrongful convictions, execution of innocent people.
6. Religion aims to promote a society where people can grow, be good, ‘making people live, not die'.

Abolition in Pakistan

In a remarkable move, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is calling for commutation of the death penalty to a life sentence for the 7000 prisoners condemned to death. The cancellation of the death sentences is proclaimed to be a tribute to Benazir Bhutto who died in a bombing and shooting attack last December. The move vindicates, in fitting fashion, her vision of Islam in the modern world, setting 'a standard of peace, prosperity, equality, and reconciliation'.

The above photograph was taken recently at the entrance to a toilet in a Bangkok petrol station. It warns that drugs entail the death penalty and originates from legislation on the control of drugs.

We submit the following comments:
As contained in the UN Economic and Social Council resolution of 1984/50 of 25 May 1984

• "the deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity" par 51.

• "To determine whether a particular offence falls among the most serious crimes,..., requires interpretation and application of the relevant international law rather than of the subjective approach opted for within a given State's criminal code and sentencing scheme" par 44.
• "With respect to particular offenses, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have determined that a wide range of specific offences fall outside the scope of the "most serious crimes" for which the death penalty may be imposed. These include: ...., drug related offences, ..." par 51
• "the Committee and the Commission have rejected nearly every imaginable category of offence other than murder as falling outside the ambit of the most setious crimes" par 52
• "the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life" Summary 3

These rulings were recalled to the 29 member Thai delegation submitting a report on its obligations under the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS during the 84th Session of Human Rights Committee, in Geneva in July 2005

In the United Nations General Assemly of December 2007 a majority vote recommended a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in all member countries. Thailand voted with the minority against the Moratorium.

Muslim Perspective on Death Penalty

On 12th July, UCL will hold a seminar in Bangkok on Thai Muslim perspectives on the death penalty. In May 2008 members of Arab civil society met in Alexandria to debate the UN proposed Moratorium on the Death Penalty, accepted by majority vote in the UN General Assembly in December 2007. The meeting resulted in the following highly significant declaration:

Alexandria Declaration

Calling upon the Arab Countries to Implement the UN Resolution 62/149 on the Establishment of a Moratorium on the Death Penalty

1. We, the representatives of the Arab civil society and the Arab coalitions challenging the death penalty, have met in Alexandria, the Arab Republic of Egypt, from 12 to 14 May 2008 at the kind invitation of the Swedish Institute in Alexandria and in partnership with Penal Reform International [PRI], in corporation with Amman Centre for Human Rights Studies [ACHRS] and MAAT Centre for Lawyers and Constitutional Studies, with the participation of representatives from the Cairo EC delegation, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Arab League and Amnesty International, for discussion and consultation on the implementation of the United Nations Recommendation 62/149 of 23 December 2007 concerning the establishment of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty;

2. Convinced that the death penalty is a violation of the most fundamental human right, i.e. the right to life; and that it did not succeed in any country in deterring criminality or in preventing it;

3. Believe that the death penalty amounts to torture and is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It contravenes the principle that consecrates the sanctity of human life. Life is God given and he alone could take it back.

4. Note with regret that the Arab judicial systems are abusively using the death penalty at the time most countries are abandoning it.

5. Recall that the tolerant Islamic Sharia’a has prescribed the death penalty as a deterrent, but sought to restrict the scope of its application to a very limited number of cases and by imposing strict conditions related to the infallibility of the witnesses, the absolute fairness of the judges and even then left room for possible forgiveness and reconciliation. In practice, this amounts to an effective establishment of a moratorium on the death penalty in Islam.

6. Underline that such a penalty is being used in Arab positive laws extensively going far more than what the Sharia’a sought to impose.

7. Note with concern that the Arab legislations prescribing death penalty are ambiguous and leave room for wide interpretation in the categorization of acts punishable by death, such as organized crime, terrorism, treat to state security and other crimes of political nature.

8. Remind that most of the legal and judicial systems in the Arab World are undergoing reforms, implicitly acknowledging some of their intrinsic disfunctionality. Such an imperfect justice system should not be empowered to apply death penalty.

9. Considering that the Arab world is part of the international community and since Arab countries have participated in the discussion and adoption of the United Nations resolution 62/149, we call upon all Arab States to respect the said resolution and establish a moratorium on the death penalty.

10. Request the Arab governments, each according to its own circumstances, to fully comply with the United Nations resolution 62/149 by:

• “(a) Respect[ing] international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984;
• (b) Provide[ing] the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of capital punishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty;
• (c) Progressively restrict[ing] the use of the death penalty and reduce[ing] the number of offences for which it may be imposed;
• (d) Establish[ing] a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.

11. Appeal to the Arab judges to comply, in the exercise of their profession, with the international standards of fair trial, to refrain from the use of the death penalty and to use alternative punishments instead.

12. Urge the member states of the Arab League to consider amending article 7 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights in order to eliminate any possibility of applying the death penalty to the under 18 of age.

13. Furthermore, appeal to the Arab states which have observed a de facto moratorium to remove this punishment from their legislation in order to prevent its circumstantial use.

14. Also appeal to the Arab journalists and human rights activists to fully play their role in the awareness raising and combat bad customs and practices such as revenge, violence in all its forms, and the dissemination of human rights culture, particularly the right to life.

15. Emphasize the need for the civil society to continue intensifying its activities to convince the public that narrowing and eventually abolishing the death penalty serves the ambition of the Arab masses in fulfilling their aspiration to justice and human rights.

Alexandria, 14 May 2008

With the objective of enlisting religious leaders in the movement for abolition of the death penalty in Thailand, UCL, with the cooperation of the National Human Rights Commission, is organizing a set of seminars throughout the country. The seminars are sponsored by the European Union Commission, the Embassy of the Netherlands, and the Embassy of France.

Time Table of Seminars: June – July

Seminar 1 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: Postponed

Location: Central Thailand

Seminar 2 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: 30^th June 2008

Location: Mahachulalonghorn University

(Wat Suan Dok)

Chiangmai

Seminar 3 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: 7th July 2008

Location: MahachulalonghornUniversity

(Wat Mahawanaram)

Ubon

Seminar 4 Islam and the Death Penalty

Date: 12^th July 2008

Location: Islamic Centre of Thailand, Bangkok

Seminar 5 Religion and the Death Penalty

Date: 15^th July 2008

Location: Office of National Human Rights Commission

Bangkok

Is this the model which Thailand follows?

In Thailand, the charge is often heard that opposition to the death penalty is an imposition of 'western' values. In fact Thailand has learned the trade of lethal injection from the US and points to the US as justification for Thai practice. One may ask whether the following is the model which Thailand follows:

The release of the third death row inmate in six months in North Carolina last week is raising fresh questions about whether states are supplying capital-murder defendants with adequate counsel, even as an execution on Tuesday night in Georgia ended a seven-month national suspension.

In all three cases, North Carolina appeals courts found that evidence that would have favored the defendants was withheld from defense lawyers by prosecutors or investigators. In two of the cases, including that of Levon Jones, who was released on Friday after 14 years on death row, the courts said the defendants’ lawyers had failed to mount an adequate defense. Nationwide, Mr. Jones’s release was the sixth in a year.

John Holdridge, director of the A.C.L.U. Capital Punishment Project, which provided representation for Mr. Jones, said the successful appeals showed that the problem with the death penalty was not the method of execution — the issue ruled on by the Supreme Court last month — but instead “poor people getting lousy lawyers.”

Bang Kwang Prison - one of the worst in world

Bang Kwang Prison where most prisoners condemned to death in Thailand are held has been listed by TIMESONLINE as one of the 10 worst prisons in the world, with the following citation:

Bangkwang jail, Thailand
Tempted to take a little marijuana on your fortnight package tour of Thailand? It may be unwise unless you want to end up in the infamous "Bangkok Hilton".
In recent years the prison's population has trebled to 7,000 and the guards are outnumbered 50-1. Every inmate there is serving more than 25 years and for the first three months of their sentence each is forced to wear leg irons.
Inside Building 10, prisoners are held in solitary confinement in pitch black cells two metres square wearing "elephant chains" for months on end.
"Thai prisons are tough." says Director of Prisons Khun Nattee in a superfluous warning to tourists. "You don't want to be in Bangkwang."

In recent days UCL was involved in helping poor Muslims from the South of Thailand pay a once a year visit to their, husbands, sons, fathers. It was a trying procedure, perhaps not maliciously difficult but, given the overcrowding and lack of personnel, an absolutely unacceptable treatment of men condemned to death.

Death Penalty from a Religious Viewpoint

In the most recent report on the death penalty issued by Amnesty International, the number of executions world wide in 2007 are reported to be a minimum of 1252 persons. Amnesty further reports that ‘Many government claim that executions take place with public support’. Such is the attitude of Thai government officials, many of whom profess to personally be in favour of abolition of the death penalty.

In this context it is our belief that the reported public approval of the death penalty must be questioned. Acceptance of the death penalty among the general population appears to rest on an unawareness of the rejection of the death penalty by the majority of nations in the world, the failure of the death penalty to reduce serious crime, and, above all, by a lack of moral leadership to make known ethical arguments against it.

Religious figures in Thailand largely share the perceptions of the general population in favour of the death penalty. They are not conscious that application of the death penalty conflicts with the most basic religious beliefs of Thailand’s main religious groups. In undertaking a campaign to inform religious opinion in Thailand we submit the following article.

Death Penalty and Religion

"The movement to abolish the death penalty needs the religious community because the heart of religion is about compassion, human rights, and the indivisible dignity of each human person made in the image of God." Helen Prejean

Thailand is a Buddhist country

Buddhism abhors the death of any living creature

Thailand adheres to the death penalty

The logic is faulty, but that is often the way of religions and the practice that one might expect to follow from them. Even Buddhist monks admit that they have not been conscious of the contradiction between belief and practice with regard to the penalty of death. Others resort to a version of the argument that ‘to kill a fish is a sin, but to serve fish to a monk is a greater good’. They argue that while the death penalty is wrong, the condemned criminal is burdened with karma and it is a good deed to release him from this life to be born again with a renewed opportunity to progress to nirvana.

The connection between a religious viewpoint and acceptance of the death penalty is a complex issue. Religions based on a written inspiration which is believed to be the revealed word of God, such as the Bible and the Koran, specifically enjoin the death penalty. But a reflection of the basic truths contained in their religious message can lead to an opposite conclusion. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is unequivocal and has found its positive expression in that modern epitome of man’s relationship with other men, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Everyone has the right to life’. In this case we know the mind of those who formulated the guiding words, it was intended to make way for a total abolition of the death penalty.

1. The death penalty in religious writings and traditions.

The Hindu religion and its derivatives is the oldest religion which has a written record of beliefs. One of the core beliefs involves the concept of Ahimsa from which all other virtues emanate.

Ahimsa is a Sanskrit term meaning non-violence (literally: the avoidance of violence - himsa). Ahimsa is a rule of conduct centered in the avoidance of harm in thoughts as well as actions, and bars the killing or injuring of living beings. It is closely connected with the notion that all kinds of violence, mental or physical, entail negative karmic consequences.

The extent to which the principle of non-violence can or should be applied to different life forms is controversial between various authorities, movements and currents within the ancient religions and has been a matter of debate for thousands of years. It is an important tenet of the religions that originated in ancient India (Hinduism, Buddhism and especially Jainism)

Hindu scriptures and law books support the use of violence in self-defence against an armed attacker. They make it clear that criminals are not protected by the rule of ahimsa. They have no misgivings about the death penalty; their position is that evil-doers who deserve death should be killed, and that a king in particular is obliged to punish criminals and should not hesitate to kill them, even if they happen to be his own brothers and sons.

An example enjoining the death penalty may be found in The Manu Smrti, the most authoritative Hindu law-book:

` When a woman, proud of her relations [or abilities] deceives her husband (with another man ), then the king should [ensure that] she be torn apart by dogs in a place much frequented by people ' [Manu Smrti 8:371] ` And the evil man should be burnt in a bed of red-hot iron ' [Manu Smrti 8:371-2]

In Jainism the understanding and implementation of ahimsa is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive than in any other religion. Non-violence is seen as the most essential religious duty for everyone (ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ, a statement often inscribed on Jain temples) On the other hand, Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defence can be justified and that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a legitimate duty. Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defence, and there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers.

In the Jewish Christian Bible, capital punishment is prescribed: ‘For your life-blood I will demand satisfaction…. He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be shed’ Genesis 9, 5-6. However, there is a counter tradition in an earlier text referring to the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, both children of the first parents, Adam and Eve. Accused by God of his crime, Cain complains of his fate, “‘I shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth, and anyone who meets me can kill me’. The Lord answered him, ‘No: if anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold’. So the Lord put a mark on Cain, in order that anyone meeting him should not kill him.’

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, crimes incurring the death penalty are multiplied, especially for religious and sexual crimes. The Christian section of the Bible, or the New Testament, does not specifically treat of the death penalty other than by implication when Jesus is reported to have confirmed earlier laws; ‘As long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law’ Matt. 5.18

Islam and Buddhism being the major religions of Thailand will be treated separately in detail. In summary, the Koran prescribes the death penalty for murder under certain conditions, especially a requirement for the evidence of witnesses. But it also teaches that God prefers forgiveness. Unlike the Vedic religion, ancient Buddhism had strong misgivings about violent ways of punishing criminals and about war. Both were not explicitly condemned, but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged. It is recorded that the kings of several Buddhist kingdoms in India abolished capital punishment as did the previous Dalai Lama about the year 1920. (The present booklet includes a support for the recent UN Moratorium by the current Dalai Lama). A story related about the conversion of a notorious robber killer by the Buddha emphasizes the possibility of a rehabilitation which

excludes the death penalty.

An important attitude to the death penalty is contained in traditional African tribal law. While not specifically a religious teaching it forms part of traditional culture which is inspired by reverence for ancestors and the supernatural. Typical of this approach is the concept of unhu as practiced in Zimbabwe: "Unhu" embodies all the invaluable virtues that society strives for towards maintaining harmony and the spirit of sharing among its members:

Unhu constitutes the kernel of African Traditional Jurisprudence as well as leadership and governance. In the concept of unhu, crimes committed by one individual on another extend far beyond the two individuals and have far-reaching implications to the people among whom the perpetrator of the crime comes from. Unhu jurisprudence tends to support remedies and punishments that tend to bring people together. For instance, a crime of murder would lead to the creation of a bond of marriage between the victim's family and the accused's family in addition to the perpetrator being punished both inside and outside his social circles. The role of "tertiary perpetrator" to the murder crime is extended to the family and the society to which the individual perpetrator belongs. The punishment of the tertiary perpetrator is a huge fine and a social stigma, which they must shake off after many years of demonstrating "unhu”. A leader who has "unhu" is selfless and consults widely and listens to his subjects. He or she does not adopt a lifestyle that is different from his subjects and lives among his subjects and shares what he owns. A leader who has "unhu" does not lead but allows the people to lead themselves and cannot impose his will on his people, which is incompatible with "unhu". The modern concept of rehabilitative justice is inspired by such practices of traditional justice

2. Practice of the Death Penalty

While Jesus spoke in favour of preserving the Mosaic Law, his practice was otherwise. An incident is related when religious teachers brought before him as a test case a woman caught committing adultery: ‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. In the Law Moses has laid down such women are to be stoned. What do you say about it?’ Jesus replied, ‘That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone.’ One by one they went away. When all had left, Jesus turned to the woman and asked, ‘Where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She answered, ‘No one, sir.’ Jesus said, ‘Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again.’

A remarkably similar story is told of Mohammad. A woman came to the Prophet to confess her adultery. The Prophet asked if there were witnesses, but there were none. She insisted that her confession be received, but the Prophet insisted that she return four times in order for her reiterated confessions to be equivalent to the four eyewitnesses required for condemnation. When she did that, he still insisted that she corroborate her confession with external evidence. She then confessed to being pregnant. The Prophet, clearly wanting to avoid applying the penalty, deferred it until she gave birth, because otherwise the penalty would affect her unborn child. Eight months later, she returned, but the Prophet again refused to apply the penalty because she had to breastfeed the child, and he asked her to return nine months later. When she returned, he asked her if she wanted to recant her confession, but she confirmed it. He then felt that he had no choice but to order the penalty carried out. When his companions returned from the stoning, he asked them if they had heard her recant. They asked why and he said that, if she had, they should have stopped the stoning. There are other versions of this strange story but the underlying intent, for all the unhappy outcome, remains to show a wish to divert the punishment for lack of witness or for the repentance of the woman.

But the ensuing history of religions relates the sad history of thousands of years of infliction of the death penalty, and in earlier times with horrific brutality. Part of the motive was vindictiveness, and anger against the criminal and the desire to make him suffer as he had made others suffered. Those issuing the condemnation claimed that their anger was justified by the anger of God. It is said, indeed, that the so called law of the talion, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was intended to mitigate vengeance and to set a measure to its ferocity. At times, punishment was considered a first installment of the punishment which God himself would inflict in the next life. At other times, there was expressed the pious hope that punishment inflicted in this life would allow the evildoer to repent and escape eternal punishment in the next Clearly too, there was the employment of capital punishment as a deterrent, emphasized by the public display of severed heads on spikes and allowing hanged bodies to remain suspended in public view. The public burning of heretics was another terrible warning to others. We can understand the resource to capital punishment in societies which did not have the means to securely imprison the guilty for a long period, and the need in an unstable society to meet immediate crime with immediate punishment. There was also a feeling that the presence of a murderer in a society would bring down the anger of God on a community. The complicity of religion in administering the death penalty is shown most clearly in the life of ‘Mastro Titta’, the executioner of the Papal Vatican State between 1796 and 1865. At the age of 85 he carried out the last of 516 executions he had performed throughout his life, always with great ceremony and display.

3. Rejection of the Death Penalty

But gradually over the centuries the wonder of mercy came to be recognized:

The quality of mercy is not strained.

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is enthroned in the heart of kings;

It is an attribute of God himself,

And earthly powers doth then show likest God’s

When mercy seasons justice.

(Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice)

The abolition of capital punishment from legal codes may be traced to the work of Cesare Beccaria (1738 – 1794) an Italian criminologist and economist. In 1764 he published ‘On Crime and Punishment’ a work on criminal justice which is still relevant today. He pointed out that the certainty of punishment was more effective in deterring crime than its severity. Criticising the use of torture and secret courts in legal procedures he rejected capital punishment. The motivation of his work was a more profound understanding of humanity rather than any religious principle. Influenced by his writing the Duchy of Tuscany became the first State to ban the death penalty in 1786. Venezuela and Portugal became the first modern states to do so in 1867. Today, whether in law or in practice, 149 states have abandoned the death penalty; it is retained by 49 states. The most recent country to declare against the death penalty is Uzbekistan in January, 2008.

Although religions were not the direct source of motivation in rejecting the death penalty they have come to realize that the death penalty is incompatible with the most profound principles of religion. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.” As religions have become dissociated from state power, they have turned to a more personal role and answer to the personal longings of individuals. Persons with religious convictions interact with those condemned to death and realize more clearly that the punishment of death is not a solution to crime but itself an added crime. The option of long imprisonment has allowed time to reverse misjudgments of guilt which previously resulted in the deaths of the innocent. Time has shown too that those condemned can come to regret their crimes, to ask for forgiveness from those who were injured, and to reform their lives. This is a process known and appreciated in all religions.

All personal religions acknowledge that God is merciful, surely even more merciful than man. Buddhists realize that all life is sacred, that there can be no exceptions. By identifying the underlying basis of belief in religion we submit that it is part of the religious perspective to reject the death penalty. Religions must find their place in a secular world and it is heartening that an agreement about the most basic right of all, the right to life, can be a value shared by both religious people and those who do not own allegiance to any religion. It will contribute to peace in the world, that all respect the lives of each other and will never demand the penalty of the death of another, whether in time of peace or in time of war, or for any reason whatsoever. And in token of this determination we welcome the support of all religions in urging our country to ratify the 2^nd Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which makes explicit the full meaning of the entitlement to life established in the law of nations.

Moratorium on Death Penalty: Thailand

UN Resolution for a Moratorium on the Death Penalty

The UN in full session is like a huge oil tanker, ploughing through high seas and storms, only slowly adapting its great momentum to change course. Such a momentous change was the adoption of a resolution on 18^th December last to suspend the death penalty world wide. The UN General Assembly was born out of the terrible experience of two world wars, the slaughter of millions, and the questioning of what had been thought to be a state of civilisation. Sixty years ago the UN proclaimed what we would now call a road map, ‘the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ a document of great simplicity but immense compass. Over those sixty years there has been some progress in achieving its aim of freedom and security, although progress in one area or place is often accompanied by regression elsewhere; war, famine, disease, senseless killing and cruelty remain the still, sad music of humanity.

But there has been progress in achieving the most fundamental of all its promises. The passing of a resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty, acknowledges that the words ‘Everyone has the right to life’ in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration, is now an achievable goal. Yet, the resolution limits itself to an expression of ‘deep concern’, asking that the death penalty be progressively restricted and the number of offences for which it may be imposed reduced. Such language of compromise and persuasion prevails, but the original strong mind of the Universal Declaration also rings out, ‘Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty’. It is known that the formulation ‘Everyone has a right to life’ were the most contested words of the Declaration. While some wished to extend the words to outright prohibition of the death penalty, others wanted the legitimacy of the death penalty to be explicitly sustained. What we inherit is an incomplete phrase, whose meaning the resolution of 18^th December has now further revealed.

Twice before, such a motion was introduced to the UN, but failed to reach a vote in the General Assembly. On this occasion, despite strong opposition, the motion advanced and the final vote tallied a majority of 104 votes in favour, 54 against, and 29 abstentions. The most heartening aspect of the vote was that 20 states that still have the death penalty voted in favour of the resolution. The stand of those opposing the motion is revealing. The US, the major ideological purveyor of the death penalty in the world, was uncharacteristically silent in the debate. This is probably due to signs of a coming ground change on the issue in the US where the legality of lethal injection is being strongly contested. It is also being realised that the cost of execution and adequate legal defence is more expensive than life imprisonment. China too, the major executioner in the world, was unwilling to engage in the debate and expose its legal system to public censure. The most virulent opposition to the resolution came from that world champion of human rights, Singapore, which asserted its right to execute whom it wishes, denying others the right to comment on its internal affairs. Strangely, this mini state which aspires to participate in every western economic, industrial, banking, and cultural practice, objects to the imposition of western standards supporting abolition of the death penalty. One may ask whether from the Singapore viewpoint the UN itself is too ‘western’ an institution. And if it is, does that make the right to life less valid?

The part played by Thailand in the debate was also inglorious. In a speech expressing opposition to the Resolution the Thai delegate echoed the language of Singapore, affirming the necessity of the death penalty as a deterrent. But also, when questioned by Italian sponsors of the Resolution he responded in words which reflect shamefully on this Buddhist Kingdom, saying that “the Thai Constitution has not been changed and still called for the death penalty, that some lives were not worth keeping and should be executed”. Meanwhile the Thai population is largely uninformed about world opinion regarding the death penalty and accepts the model of practice in the US, where a Thai team learned the craft of lethal injection. It is time for moral leadership from civil, political, and religious leaders to follow the recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly to accept a moratorium on executions, and to enter into an examination of a barbaric practice which is surely destined to vanish from the earth. The majority of the world’s nations have concluded that the death penalty is not a deterrent to serious crime, that it is not a proportionate punishment for drug crimes which form the largest number of capital crimes in Thailand, and that the occurrence of wrongful execution of the innocent is not avoided. The moratorium is intended to allow an opportunity to begin the process of reflection on capital punishment, to assess the evidence which has led the majority of the world’s countries to abolish it, and to discover the motivation within Thai religious and cultural traditions for a choice in favour of life. The assurance to future generations that ‘Everyone has a right to life’ will enhance the value of every life and emphasize that there are no useless people. It is time to begin. If not now, when?

Black Hole of Singapore

SINGAPORE - Tan chor Jin

Tan chor Jin is facing execution after his final appeal was rejected on 30 January. He was sentenced to death in May 2007 for murder after a trial his lawyer described as unfair. Tan Chor Jin was also kept in solitary confinement before his trial. There is little public debate about the death penalty in Singapore and murder carries a mandatory death penalty. Singapore also has one of the highest execution rates per capita in the world.

A justice system which has a mandatory death penalty is unjust. Such a system excludes consideration of extenuating circumstances.
Singapore has not signed the fundamental human rights treaties which define the implications of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, they declaim on their right to maintain the death penalty. What about the right to life? It is now the widely accepted interpretation of the right to life that the death penalty may only be imposed 'for the most serious crimes' which does not include drug offenses. To sign the particular treaties is to recognize that right, not to establish it. The right already exists. Singapore spokespersons may puff all they wish and point to the diminishing club of recalcitrant states to which they belong in maintaining the death penalty, but the concealed executions in Changi darken the name of their island.

Further Reverse on the Issue of Shackling

Under the heading 'Issue of Shackling', news was given below of the initiative by prisoners themselves to appeal against permanent shackling of all prisoners condemned to death, even of those whose cases are still under appeal. The courts have now ordered the removal of shackles of two Thai prisoners who took legal action. However, they are not allowed to go outside the prison cells to exercise with other prisoners. The first to take legal action against shackling was a non-Thai citizen. While his case was under consideration the courts ordered that his shackles be removed. However, although his plea is still under consideration by the court, he has been shackled again. In justification prison authorities cite his bad behaviour in having some sleeping tablets in his possession when he first came to the prison, a fault for which he was duly punished at the time by three days of solitary confinement. They also plead the danger of his escaping from the prison. May we again remind the prison authorities of the UN Human Rights Committee admonition that NO EXCUSE can justify this inhumane practice.

Death Penalty and the Autonomy of States

In Afghanistan a 23 year old student and journalist for a local newspaper, Sayed Parwez Kaambaksh, has been condemned to death for 'blasphemy'. The charge arises from an article which appeared on the Internet, claiming that men and women should be treated equally by Islam. He asked why a man could have four wives while polyandry was forbidden. The article was judged by the court to be insulting to Islam.
The sentence was denounced by the UN, and several human rights organizations, who pointed out that the defendant had even been denied legal aid during the trial, appealed to the President of Afghanistan to overturn the verdict. The Senate reacted by confirming the sentence and protesting against outside interference in the affairs of Afghanistan.
In the recent debate in the UN on a Death Penalty Moratorium, countries rejecting the Moratorium, notably Singapore, affirmed the right of their countries to practice the death penalty as they saw fit, condemning the proponents of the Moratorium for attempting to interfere in the affairs of their States. As in Afghanistan, so in Singapore!

If Not Now, When?

Two recent developments raise the question again of Thailand's adherence to the death penalty;
1. The vote in favour of a universal moratorium on capital punishment in the United Nations General Assembly despite the decision of Thailand to oppose the measure.
2. The slow but inevitable progress of the US towards abolition
a) this development is evident in the consideration by the US Supreme Court of the constitutionality of lethal injection: " The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, January 7, on whether or not the lethal injection process in Kentucky is a violation of the Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. While the case, Baze v. Rees, has prompted a de facto moratorium on executions, it does not concern the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.

Currently, 35 of the 36 states with the death penalty use variations of the same three-drug combination in their lethal injection executions. Kentucky uses thiopental to make the inmate unconscious, pancuronium to paralyze the muscles, and potassium to ultimately stop the inmate's heart. The petitioners in Baze state that this combination of drugs has a high likelihood of producing severe and unnecessary pain in the prisoner. The second and paralyzing drug, however, makes the prisoner unable to exhibit any pain. Death row inmates in other states have also challenged lethal injection procedures in recent years."
The case is another manifestation of the realisation that there is no method to execute people without pain and indignity. The increasing numbers waiting for long delayed execution reveal that even the US has lost the stomach to send people to their death.
b) Whatever its lack of moral appeal, it is lately recognized in the US that it is more costly to execute people than to keep them in indeterminate detention, especially if one includes the cost of effective legal defense which is recognise to be a required precondition of the death penalty.

These developments raise the question for Thailand, "If not now, when?". By its vote against the Moratorium Thailand has taken a stand with the reactionary minority on one of the great moral issues of the day. And yet, Thailand lays claim to the high moral standing of its Buddhist culture which prohibits killing in any form. Will Thailand wait until it is the last state of all to renounce judicial killing?
Thailand has learned the trade of execution from the US and Government always point to US practice as an example that Thailand follows. What if the US is now visibly faltering and inching towards abolition? Whenever Thailand makes a step towards adopting world standards in human rights, it points to the moral imperative of its action. Will Thailand wait until the US has moved against the death penalty to discover its moral justification to follow?
At present there are up to 1000 men and women condemned to death in Thailand. Does the Government seriously consider beginning a process of execution at a rate determined by the facilities for execution, which could take years to complete? In the extreme, would we execute 10 persons a week for the next two years to clear the backlog?
If we do not abolish the death penalty now, then when?

Justice should be seen to be done

Conviction of Karen villager

On 25^th April 1986 a Karen man rode a motorbike returning to his home village of Ban Tai from the market town of Ban Rai. At a distance of about 6 kms from home he was killed by a single shot fired by an unknown assailant. The body was discovered about half an hour later. An autopsy on the body found that death was due to a wound caused by a shot gun, that the deceased rode a Suzuki motorbike of unknown registration and that the body was taken by a daughter to perform the usual rites.

The murdered man had been a contentious person who had made many enemies in his own and in neighbouring Karen villages. Complaints against him included concern for missing funds in local cooperatives. Among the several villagers who had quarrelled with him was one Dei Zou Naa. Speaking about the matter recently the Kamnan of the village remarked that the quarrel with Dei Zou Naa was typical of the many minor quarrels which occur between villagers living in a closed community.

Little is know of police investigation at the time. Police were later to affirm that their access to the area was affected by communist influence in the area which they claimed was a ‘pink’ zone. The only evidence they found was the butt end of a hand rolled cigarette and betal spittle, which they believed to indicate that the murderer was a hill tribe man.

Karen villagers form a close community with many social interactions, mutual dependence, and family relationships. A murder affecting these relations would be a major disturbance to normal life. A ceremony of appeasement was held before a village monk where the wife of the murdered man drank sacred water and denied that she held any vindictive feeling against members of the village, nor did she blame any particular person. At the time she had a son who was about one year old.

Years passed and the murder appeared to have little further relevance. The son of the murdered man went elsewhere to attend school, returning about three years ago as a grown teenager. He appeared to inherit the contentious character of his father and began to approach the Kamnan of the village asking him to arrest this one and that one whom he suspected of being the person responsible for murdering his father. The Kamnan refused saying that there was no evidence to implicate the persons suspected by the son. Finally, the son persuaded his mother to lay charges against Dei Zou Naa with whom she had normal friendly village dealings throughout the years. Dei Zou Naa, 66 years old, was arrested for the murder of nineteen years before. He was charged in court, found guilty, and condemned to death, a penalty then moderated to life imprisonment, a living death for a 66 year old man.

The conviction astonished the villagers of Ban Tai who remembered well the events of the day 19 years before. At least 15 of the villagers, among them the present Kamnan, asserted that Dei Sou Naa was with them throughout the day husking rice. Husking rice using a foot operated pestle was a community event, each family bringing their rice and taking turns to pound the husked rice. Dei Sou Naa had neither motorbike nor bicycle by which he could travel to the scene of the murder, and a long absence could not have passed unnoticed. Besides he would have had to pass houses in the village where his passage would have been noted. Villagers also testified that Dei Zou Naa has always been a quiet and peaceable person noted for his readiness to help others. They cannot believe that he would have carried out an act of violence. It seems that their testimony was not considered by the court.

At present the case is in appeal. It is difficult to understand the conviction on extremely flimsy evidence, a cigarette end and betal nut spittal of 19 years before. The lawyer acting for Dei Zou has firm hope that the Appeal Court will reverse the verdict.

Meanwhile bail is refused for fear that Dei Zou might flee. The wife of the convicted man has become paralysed and needs his presence, He himself is prematurely aged; to where could an elderly Karen, dependent on his village community, flee. The Karen villagers are deeply disturbed and their sense of justice injured. Their reaction reflects well the criterion for sentencing in a case incurring capital punishment which requires ‘clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts’.

Image shows Karen witnesses who worked with the accused on the day of the murder and attest to his innocence

Famous Human Rights Lawyer on Moratorium

Live and let live

THONGBAI THONGPAO

Efforts to lift capital punishment in all countries by non-governmental organisations have been going on for decades and substantial progress has been made over the years. In the latest move, a motion has been submitted to the UN General Assembly for a vote on the issue.

Actually, the UN has made its stand clear that it disagrees with the death penalty. It runs against Item 3 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights which provides: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Likewise, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Thailand ratified in October 1996, prescribes: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law."

It also provides: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women".

So far, Thai constitutions and the Penal Code have been in compliance by these commitments. We don't execute a person under 18 or a pregnant woman. Our law also grants inmates on death row the right to seek a royal pardon within 60 days from the date the Supreme Court hands down its judgement and execution may take place only after royal discretion. In most cases, the royal pardon is granted, and it is only once in a blue moon that the appeal is turned down.

From Dec 12, 2003 until now, no execution has been carried out in Thailand. There are now some 900 prisoners on death row, all of whom are either in the process of seeking the royal pardon or waiting for the Supreme Court's rulings. Throughout my counselling career, I have represented three suspects facing capital punishment for manslaughter by martial court. In these cases, I sought the royal pardon on their behalf and they were all granted. All three are now free men leading a normal life. One of them even entered politics by running for Parliament thanks to the boundless mercy of His Majesty the King.

Last month, I met Prof Speedy Rice, the representative of World Coalition Against The Death Penalty, who is here on a worldwide campaign to lobby for the lift of the death penalty, and Danthong Breen from the Union for Civil Liberty, to discuss the issue. According to them, 60 countries have abolished the punishment for all crimes, 11 have done so for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes, and 32 still retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. This makes a total of 133 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Sixty-four other countries, Thailand included, retain and use the death penalty.

Prof Rice also met with Thirapat Serirangsan, a minister to the Prime Minister's Office, and Charan Phakdithanakul, permanent secretary for Justice, who both agree with the principle and pledged to push the issue.

Under the Thai law, capital crimes include offences against life or national security, drug trafficking, and rapes which result in deaths.

In my view, despite the letter of the law, Thailand appears to be more willing now than ever to lift the penalty. Not only does the punishment run against our international commitments, it is also not acceptable under Buddhism, the religion of the majority of the people. Since almost all of our judges are Buddhists who uphold the value of life and the instruction against killing, the death penalty is handed down only in the most violent of cases and on the cruelest of criminals. Even after it is passed, the prisoner may appeal to the King. All of our constitutions provide that the King has the prerogative to grant a pardon and in practice His Majesty has always had mercy of them.

As this year is an auspicious one in which Thais celebrate His Majesty the King's 80th birthday, the government should therefore rethink the issue and consider lifting the penalty as a gift to His Majesty. But since the UN General Assembly is nearing, we might not be able to abolish it in time. At the least, if a vote on the issue is to be cast at the meeting, I hope Thailand at least abstains and drops its support for the penalty.

Bangkok Post, Sunday 18th November 2007

The Issue of Shackling

In July 2005 Thailand presented to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva its report on the implementation of its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In its response the Human Rights Committee issued a stern admonition that the State "should guarantee the right of detainees to be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity". The issue of shackling was given special attention; "The use of shackling and long period of solitary confinement should be stopped immediately". Yet, two years later prisoners condemned to death are still permanently shackled. UCL has drawn attention again and again to the admonition of the Human Rights Committee and the obligation under international law to implement the terms of the Covenant. The response has been that the prison authorities are 'not yet ready' to fulfill their obligation.

To the shame of the prison authorities, prisoners themselves are taking legal initiatives against the unjust practice. A first case was submitted to the Administrative Court against the Corrections Department on the grounds that perpetual shackling is against Correctional Policy Guidelines, and causes mental stress and physical difficulties to prisoners. Photographic evidence of prison conditions demonstrated that shackling could not be claimed necessary to ensure the secure detention of prisoners. The Court immediately ordered that shackles be removed from the prisoner who submitted the complaint while the case was under consideration. On this decision another prisoner also invoked legal action. In this second case the decision of the Court has already been handed down, that perpetual shackling is indeed illegal. At present fifty prisoners are bringing similar action. If the precedent has been established it is difficult to see how a favourable decision will not be granted in other cases.

A worrying consequence is that prisoners whose shackles have been removed are being restricted to their cell block, unlike shackled prisoners who are free to go outside.
The Corrections Department is appealing the case where a decision has already been given. Can this be considered acceptable given the ruling of the Human Rights Committee two years ago?

And does the Corrections Department intend to oppose the legal case of every individual prisoner who seeks redress under the law?