Current response against death penalty in France

To the proposition that the death penalty should be restored:

  Tout à fait d'accord (fully agree)                                        13%

  Plutôt d'accord (rather agree)                                            11%

  Plutôt pas d'accord (rather disagree)                               11%

  Pas d'accord du tout (completely disagree)                    60%

  Sans opinion (No opinion)                                                        3%

  Non réponse (No reply)                                                            2%

3127 persons participated in the survey
The last execution in France took place in 1977; the death penalty was abolished for all crimes in 1981 despite  a 62% majority support for the penalty at the time

Death Row for Women in Thailand is Empty

On 30th March 2011 there were 83 women on death row in Thailand.

Today, there are none.
All women imprisoned on death sentences had their sentences commuted by Royal Pardon on the occasion of the King's birthday on 5th December 2011.

The number of male prisoners condemned to death is 622. There is hope, based on an intention declared in the 2nd National Human Rights Plan to achieve abolition for all prisoners, that the death penalty will soon be a thing of the past for all prisoners. The emptying of death row for women should  be a rehearsal for full abolition.

But the number of 622 male prisoners is an increase of 12 over a one month period, moderating our hopes; the judicial death process is still active.

US death penalty sentencing again reversed

Today marks the end of a very long ordeal for four Chicago men who were unjustly convicted as teenagers. After 17 years, Michael Saunders, Harold Richardson, Vincent Thames and Terrill Swift—have finally been exonerated of the 1994 murder of Nina Glover. The State’s Attorney’s Office announced at a hearing today that they are dismissing the indictments against the four men. The decision follows a judge’s November 2011 order to vacate the four convictions. Saunders, Richardson, Thames and Swift have spent most of their adult lives in prison. They were between the ages of 15 and 18 when they arrested. Based on false confessions and without a shred of physical evidence, they were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 30-40 years in prison. Their cases, and others in Cook County, reveal a dangerous pattern of injustice based on false confessions. The Innocence Project is calling on Cook County to conduct a review of all cases involving juvenile confessions. In the past four months, ten people have been exonerated through DNA testing in Illinois after being unjustly convicted based on confessions they gave as teenagers. Thailand also bases convictions on forced confessions, unsupported by credible evidence. However the possibility of reversing sentences hardly exists. The only way of reforming the death penalty is to abolish it, whether in the US or in Thailand or elsewhere.

Hangings in Iran, an Infamous Record

During the first week of 2012, the Iranian authorities achieved a new record by hanging 1 person in every 4 hours. They executed 39 people in different cities, including three in public in the western city of Kermanshah. According to Amnesty International, more than 600 executions were carried out in Iran in the first 11 months of 2011. This is a marked increase over at least 553 executions recorded in the whole of 2010 and is likely to make 2011 the worst year in two decades since 1991, when at least 775 executions were recorded

Abolition of Death Penalty in Thailand - a beginning

The 2nd Five Year Human Rights Plan of Thailand contained a brief announcement of intention to abolish the death penalty. It is already the fourth year of the plan and there seemed no movement on the issue. It was worrying that in its Universal Peer Review presentation to the Human Rights Council, no mention was made of abolition. But many countries recalled the promise to address abolition. They raised questions at the UPR session and recommended action on the issue.
The Union of Civil Liberty and Amnesty International were happy to learn in a meeting with officials in the Ministry of Justice that action to achieve abolition is indeed taking place. The unit with responsibility on abolition is the Rights and Liberties Department. The following is their detailed plan of action for the year 2010.

Detailed plan of activities to promote abolition by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice

Activities in Year 2012 Months
1. Study the abolition of death penalty in various countries, both abolitionist and retentionist; the criteria and tendency in each, so as to establish the consequences of abolition 2 months
2. Study to determine the highest sanction which replaces the death penalty in countries which have abolished the death penalty 1 month
3. Study all Thai laws which incur the death penalty, aspects of such laws, and the level of violence for which sentence is imposed 3 months
4. Study the statistics of trials which have imposed the death sentence and trials which have resulted in executions over the last 10 years 2 months
5. Interview experts in human rights, legal matters, and judicial procedure, victims of crime, persons who were condemned to death, and the general public 1 month
6. Organize workshops in the four regions of Thailand and in Bangkok, for participants from every province to survey opinion on the theme, “The attitude of Thai society to abolition of the death penalty” 1 month
7. Make submission to committees and sub-committees on the proposal to abolish laws imposing the death penalty, presenting opinions and proposals resulting from studies 1 month
8. Prepare a summary of studies and suggestions for further action on the theme “Abolition of laws which impose the death penalty” as proposed in the 2nd National Human Rights Plan, for discussion by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department. 1 month

We welcome this concrete initiative which we will support in every way possible.
However, we are troubled that the collection of opinion throughout the country is not preceded or accompanied by a campaign to inform public opinion. The Thai public are unaware of progress made elsewhere and changing world wide choices on the death penalty. There is danger that uninformed opinion may win the day. There is also a glaring lack of reference to political leadership which has been essential to achieve abolition in every country in the world.
We are also worried by interest shown in the "highest sanction" which might replace the death penalty. This is surely "life sentence, without parole". Such a sanction is only another form of the death penalty, and just as unacceptable. We are proposing a maximum sanction equivalent to that available to the International Criminal Court, a maximum sentence of 30 years, or, in exceptional circumstances, a life sentence. Both, however, would allow for parole. Consideration for parole in case of a life sentence would begin after 25 years.

Death Row Thailand - empty!

Male prisoners condemned to death are detained in Bang Kwang prison, in segregated areas of Buildings 5 and 7, which for want of another name is often referred to as Death Row, even if the areas do not have a topological similarity or penitentiary identity with those in the US,home of death rows. Women prisoners condemned to death are held in the Women's Central Prison, Ladphrao, and are not segregated at all from other women prisoners. However, relatives know exactly where they are and when they may be visited. Until Bangkok was flooded. First, it was reported that 600 prisoners had been moved from the flooded area of Bang Kwang in 17 buses, to be distributed in prisons elsewhere in the country. Now, we are told that Bang Kwang, this massive old high security prison, has been emptied of all prisoners, and its prisoners are being held in unknown locations. This is no small matter, Bang Kwang is already an overcrowded prison, with 4,191 prisoners, 676 of them condemned to death and permanently shackled. Where are they? The website of the Corrections Department has provided a phone number and an email address to make inquiries during the flood emergency. Emails remain unanswered and the telephone rings without response. These 676 people are already vulnerable and under severe stress. They desperately need the support of relatives, lawyers, and others who relate to them. The feeling of being out of sight in unknown locations must be especially traumatic. One could quote all kinds of rules of prison practice requiring relatives to be notified of the place of imprisonment, but this crisis is beyond rules. There is a grave injustice in moving prisoners en mass to unknown locations and letting the days pass with no news release of what is happening to them.
In fact, the treatment of prisoners is not very different from the treatment of ordinary citizens throughout the country. God-like decisions are made on which areas will be flooded, which dams will release water, which water gates will open or close, when and where mysteriously planned walls of sandbags will rise and fall, without explanation to those who suffer the consequences. But, at least, the public fight back, ask questions, act against the flood barriers in their utter frustration.
Prisoners are treated as non-persons with no rights, chained, and restrained against every norm of human dignity.
Women prisoners live in even more inhumane conditions.
Where are they? Thai prisons are already among the most crowded in the world; undoubtedly prisoners are being forced into even more intolerable conditions. Are they receiving food and water? One does not dare to ask whether they receive adequate food and water, as these are hardly available to the ordinary citizen in the flooded areas.
What is happening? Let the prisoners telephone their relatives, friends, and supporters. Or at least make a news release on the issue.

Death Penalty and Thailand's Universal Periodic Review

I have been analyzing the references to the death penalty in the Thai UPR process, which took place on 5th October in the headquarters of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In all ten countries raised the issue:
France: moratorium + abolition. good basic reference
Nicaragua: abolition, even for grave crimes
Canada: passing reference only
Slovakia: moratorium + abolition + prison conditions. excellent
Turkey: amazing. reference to human rights plan and the issue of death penalty for drugs
Switzerland: good basic reference
Argentina: good basic reference
Hungary: best reference, mention of human rights plan, abolition, and application of death penalty to non-violent crimes
UK: Advance question on reference to death penalty in 2nd National Human Rights Plan and on 2nd OP of ICCP
Czech Republic: Advance question on 2nd OP of ICCPR

Glaring absence of Netherlands who financed UCL projects against death penalty.
Surprisingly strong support from Slovakia, Turkey, and Hungary.

Letter to US Ambassasor in Thailand

October 4, 2011 11:33 am, Nation Newspaper
On September 21, in Jackson, Georgia, the 42-year-old Afro-American Troy Davis was put to death.

The execution of Davis has shocked the world. You may reply that the execution was "prescribed by law and after due process". This is no longer a sufficient reply. The great majority of members of the world organisation you helped found already formally request a moratorium on such actions. International law continues to require ever more narrow interpretation of the phrase "most serious crimes" of Article 6.2, edging closer to an outright rejection of capital punishment.

"Any man's death diminishes me," wrote John Donne. Personally, I felt the diminishment. All capital punishment is abhorrent. The executioners speak with contempt of the "weaklings" who cannot stomach judicial killing. In fact it is the strong who object, and do not just turn away with a tear in the eye.

The reason that the death penalty is a necessary deterrent has long been shown to be a falsehood. The arguments are well known. One must counter that the state, or any human agent, does not have the authority to deprive anyone of life. It is thus written in the highest rule of life, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You may respond further that it is the duty of an ambassador to uphold the laws of the state she represents. I think not. The death penalty is a matter of conscience, and no state may impose it on any of us. You lived in the Philippines at the time that the death penalty there was abolished. For one reason or another you may not risk a personal opinion on the issue, but at least you may report the revulsion felt throughout the world to the execution of Troy Davis. He spent 20 years on the ill-named "death row". We can have no real understanding of the horror of such an experience. I can guess a little from conversations with the condemned in Bang Kwang prison. Madame Ambassador, you know the French language; doubtless you have read in its emotive original Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne by Victor Hugo. You may be familiar with the writings of Robert Badinter, who visited his clients, the last men to be executed in France, every day between their condemnation and execution. In response to the news of the execution of Troy Davis he spoke of: a judicial assassination; a stain on US history; a defeat for humanity

A man has been kept on death row for 20 years; a punishment considered cruel, inhumane and degrading by the European Court of Human Rights. As one of the founding members of the UN and as a permanent member of the Security Council, the US has an exceptional responsibility to this body. I ask whether it is appropriate that your country has declined to accept the call for a moratorium on the death penalty, first passed by majority vote on December 8, 2007 and since then twice repeated with an increased majority.

I am aware that your country claims to follow the letter of the law in retaining the "right" to capital punishment, by adding to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sotto voce, the phrase rejected by the General Assembly of 1948, "except in cases prescribed by law and after due process". Eleanor Roosevelt urged the rejection of this amendment. More explicitly, your country claims the justification allowed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6.2, "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".

But we are no longer in 1948, nor even 1966, the date of the International Covenant referred to. In 1966, Article 6.6 indicated that the allowance of Section 6.2 was a temporary measure, allowing time to adapt to the full requirement of abolition: "6.6 … Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by a State Party to the present Covenant".

In 2011, attitudes to the death penalty have greatly changed. In his report to the UN Human Rights Council, the UN secretary-general points out that, "About 140 of the 192 state members of the United Nations are believed to have abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium either legally, or in practice."

When we consider details of this case, the story becomes worse.

In 1991 Troy Davis was condemned to death for the murder of a white policeman in 1989. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime, nor was the weapon ever produced. His condemnation followed the evidence of 9 witnesses who identified him as the murderer. Seven of those witnesses later retracted their evidence, some saying that their evidence was given under pressure of police persuasion. The identification parade was carried out in a way which is no longer tolerated; before seeing the parade, witnesses had been shown a picture of Troy Davis, and told that this was the man they were expected to identify. The identification parade is now known to be a very flawed process.

The standard of evidence in the trial was far short of the standards for capital punishment. You will be aware that the standard of evidence in cases involving the death penalty is far more demanding than is the case in other criminal trials. In all probability Troy Davis was innocent.

The execution was delayed for four hours until the Supreme Court ordered the lethal injection to proceed. Is there another Victor Hugo, who can decode for us this ultimate inhumanity? President Obama declined to intervene. Before he died, Troy Davis declared that the movement to abolish the death penalty will go on. Indeed it will, Troy. This case has shocked many, and may well prove decisive in leading to abolition. One may also truly pity the wife of the slain policeman who declared her satisfaction that vengeance was achieved.

This letter is addressed to Your Excellency ahead of October 10, World Day for Abolition of the Death Penalty. One ambassador in Thailand has submitted her plea to the government of Thailand to proceed with abolition. Other ambassadors have assured me that they avail of every opportunity to make the same submission to the Royal Thai Government. Perhaps Your Excellency can find some diplomatic way to express support for an initiative parallel to that taken in the Philippines.

Danthong Breen is chairman of the Union for Civil Liberty.
10 1Email0

Troy Davis Executed

On 21st September 2011, at 23h08, in Jackson, Georgia, the 42 year old Afro-American, Troy Davis, was put to death.
In 1991 he was condemned to death for the murder of a white policeman in 1989. There was no physical evidence that he had committed the crime, nor was the weapon ever produced. His condemnation followed the evidence of 9 witnesses who identified him as the murderer. 7 of these witnesses later retracted their evidence, some of them saying that their evidence was given in response to police persuasion. The identification parade was carried out in a way which is no longer tolerated; before seeing the parade, the witnesses had been shown a picture of Troy Davis, and told that this was the man they were expected to identify. Study of witness by identification parade is now known to be a very flawed process.
The standard of evidence in the trial is far short of the standards for capital punishment. In all probability Troy Davis is innocent.
Execution was delayed for four hours until the Supreme Court ordered the lethal injection to proceed. President Obama declined to intervene.
Before he died, Troy Davis declared that the movement to abolish the death penalty will go on. Indeed it will, Troy. This case has shocked many, and may well prove decisive in leading to abolition. In passing, one may pity the wife of the slain policeman who declares her satisfaction that vengeance is achieved.

Comment by Robert Badinter who abolished the death penalty in France
- a judicial assassination
- a stain on US history
- a defeat for humanity
A man has been kept on death row for 20 years; a punishment considered cruel, inhumane, and degrading by the European Court of Human Rights

Another lesson for Thailand

Once again an illustration of the ill-practice of Thai officialdom in taking US practice on the death penalty as a model.
A stay of execution has been granted to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would again do something dangerous.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future danger” beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
"The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished." (From Editorial, NYT, 17th September 2011)

Whispers and Rumours

In his annual report on the death penalty Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, takes note of the recommendations to Retentionist countries, made on the occasion of their Universal Peer Review (UPR) before the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Thailand will undergo such a review on 5th October of this year and its death penalty practice is certain to be raised. There will be two issues, one on continued use of the death penalty, the other on shackling and other abuses of detention for those on death row. Regarding the death penalty an informant in the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of the Ministry of Justice reveals that they have already been instructed to prepare legislation for abolition. Meanwhile the death row of Bang Kwang prison is alive with rumour that shackling will be abolished. If these two tendencies are realised, we can expect Thailand to take the place of honour in next year’s report on the death penalty to the Human Rights Council.

Slaugther in Norway and the Death Penalty: Thai reaction

สังหารหมู่ในนอรเวย์ กับการไม่ลงโทษประหารชีวิต

สมศรี หาญอนันทสุข
สมาชิก แอมเนสตี้ อินเตอร์เนชั่นแนล ประเทศไทย

การละเบิดที่กรุงออสโล และการสังหารหมู่อย่างโหดเหี้ยมที่เกาะอูโทยาในวันที่ 22 กรกฏาคม ที่ผ่านมา เป็นข่าวสะเทือนขวัญไปทั่วโลก และเป็นเหตุการณ์ที่ยอมรับกันไม่ได้ ไม่ว่าใครจะอยู่เบื้องหลังการกระทำของชายคนร้ายวัย 32 ปี หรือจะมีกี่คนที่ร่วมมือในการโจมตีครั้งนี้ เหตุการณ์ดังกล่าวหากเกิดขึ้นในประเทศไทย และหากชายผู้นี้เป็นคนไทยที่ก่อคดี แล้วถูกจับได้ในเมืองไทย คงถูกศาลเตี้ยรุมประชาทัณฑ์ จนครอบครัวต้องย้ายบ้านหนีไปแล้ว

คนไทยที่อ่านหรือดูข่าวนี้ คงตกใจไม่แพ้ชาวต่างชาติ ซึ่งกำลังติดตามอย่างใจจดใจจ่อเพราะอยากจะรู้ว่าอะไรที่ทำให้คทาชายชาวนอรเวย์ผู้นี้ต้องลงมือวางระเบิด ยิงสังหารหมู่ อย่างเลือดเย็นมากๆ ที่ผ่านมาสื่อมวลชนไทยหลายแขนงวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ และบางคนลุ้นให้มีการลงโทษประหารชีวิต รวมทั้งสื่อที่ไร้คุณภาพบางแขนง เชื่อว่าประเทศนอรเวย์จะลงโทษคนคนนี้ดังเช่นที่หลายประเทศ (รวมถึงประเทศไทย) มีแนวโน้มจะกระทำกัน ที่หนักไปกว่านั้นผู้เขียนได้ฟังผู้อ่านข่าวสองท่านเมื่อวันอาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมาซึ่งพูดอย่างสะใจว่า ประเทศนอรเวย์ควรจะประหารชีวิตชายผู้นี้และสัปให้เป็นชิ้นๆ ฟังแล้วก็อดรู้สึกอเน็จอนาจใจกับเรื่องทั้งสองเรื่องไม่ได้ ก็คือเรื่องการสังหารหมู่ที่นอรเวย์ และทัศนคติของสื่อมวลชนไทยที่ซาดิสย์ไม่แพ้กัน

มันน่าสนใจว่า ผู้อ่านข่าว และคนไทยจำนวนมากไม่ทราบเลยว่าประเทศในยุโรปเขาไม่มีการลงโทษแบบนี้นานแล้ว โดยเฉพาะสมาชิก 27 ประเทศของสหภาพยุโรป (EU) ซึ่งกำหนดเป็นกฏระเบียบเลยว่าหากประเทศใด ยังมีการลงโทษประหารชีวิตอยู่ ก็จะเป็นสมาชิกไม่ได้

อย่างไรก็ตาม สำหรับประเทศนอรเวย์ (และสวิสเซอแลนด์) แม้จะไม่ได้เป็นสมาชิกสหภาพยุโรป แต่ก็ได้ปฏิบัติเช่นเดียวกับประเทศอื่นในแถบเดียวกัน และรัฐบาลทุกชุดของประเทศเขาก็ไม่เห็นด้วยกับการลงโทษที่ป่าเถื่อนทุกรูปแบบ เขาจึงออกกฏหมายยกเลิกโทษประหารฯให้นักโทษธรรมดาตั้งแต่ปี 2448 (คศ. 1905) หรือร้อยกว่าปีที่แล้วและยกเลิกคดีอาญาทุกคดีในปี 2522 อีกทั้งยังลงนามในปฏิญญาและอนุสัญญาหลักๆ ถึง 14 ฉบับ หรือเกือบทั้งหมดที่ระบุไว้ในรายงานของ แอมเนสตี้ อินเตอร์เนชั่นแนล

หากมองเรื่องการโจมตีด้วยระเบิดที่กรุงออสโลและที่เกาะอุโทยา จากตรรกะธรรมดาๆ ต้องยอมรับว่าเป็นเรื่องน่าสพึงกลัว และต้องลงโทษค้นร้ายที่เกี่ยวข้องทุกคน ไม่มีข้อยกเว้น แต่จะลงโทษอย่างไร หากถามรัฐบาลของประเทศเขาและประชาชนทั่วไปในนอรเวย์ว่า เรื่องนี้น่าจะทำให้รัฐสภาของเขานำโทษประหารชีวิตกลับมาใช้เพื่อป้องปรามการกระทำที่อาจจะเกิดขึ้นอีกในอนาคต หรือไม่ อย่างไร

ผู้เขียนขอถือวิสาสะ ยืนยันแทนคนนอรเวย์ได้เลยว่า รัฐบาลและประชาชนนอรเวย์เขาเลิกคิดถึงการลงโทษแบบตาต่อตา ฟันต่อฟัน และข้ามพ้นการลงโทษเก่าๆเช่นนี้ไปไกลเกินกว่าที่เราคิดมากแล้ว ทั้งนี้เป็นเพราะเขามีความศิวิไลย์มากกว่าเรา และเขาไม่เห็นว่ามีหลักประกันอะไรที่ โทษประหารชีวิตจะช่วยยับยั้งไม่ให้ผู้กระทำผิดผู้นี้ คิดวางระเบิด และสาดกระสุนใส่บรรดาเยาวชนเหล่านั้น เพราะผู้ที่คิดทำอะไรได้ถึงขนาดนี้ส่วนใหญ่ ไม่กลัวการถูกประหารฯอยู่แล้ว บางคนถึงขนาดติดระเบิดพลีชีพวิ่งไปยังเป้าหมาย เพื่อตายพร้อมๆกันโดยไม่ต้องคอยโทษประหารด้วยซ้ำไป

ดังนั้นโทษแบบนี้จะมีความหมายอะไร มีไปก็คอยแต่จะสร้างภาพพจน์ไม่ดีให้กับประเทศชาติ สู้เรามาคิดใหม่ ตรากฏหมายใหม่ ให้ลงโทษตลอดชีวิตดีกว่า เพื่อให้ผู้ที่กระทำผิดในลักษณะนี้มีชีวิตอยู่ในคุกให้เราได้ศึกษาถึงต้นเหตุปัจจัยที่ทำให้เขาคิด วางแผน และลงมือกระทำการนั้น ไม่ว่าสาเหตุจอมาจากการเล่นเกมส์คอมพิวเตอร์มากไป หรือมีพฤติกรรมเรียนแบบจากที่ไหน หรือเป็นความเชื่อทางศาสนา ลัทธิที่สุดโต่ง หรือเป็นผู้ก่อการร้าย หรือเป็นปัญหาทางจิตล้วนๆ ที่อาจจะเกิดขึ้นอีกกับสมาชิกของอีกหลายครอบครัวในอนาคตก็ได้

จึงอยากจะเตือนสติคนไทยหลายคนว่า เมื่อเราจะกำจัดความรุนแรงด้วยการใช้วิธีที่รุนแรง มันอาจจะกำจัดคนๆนั้นด้วยการเพิ่มคนตายให้กับประเทศนอรเวย์อีกหนึ่งคน แต่ความรุนแรงที่เสริมเพิ่มเข้าไปนั้น มันจะฝังลึกในจิตใต้สำนึกผู้คนทั่วไปมากกว่าเก่าหรือเปล่า หรือสู้เรานำกรณีความรุนแรงนี้มาเป็นประโยชน์ศึกษาให้ถึงต้นเหตุ เพื่อนำผลการศึกษามาเฝ้าระวัง ป้องกันคนต่อๆไปไม่ให้มีโอกาสกระทำการเช่นนี้ จะดีกว่าหรือไม่

Also
H.E. Nordgaard Katja,
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway
Bangkok, Thailand

It seems to me that many people from inside and outside the country are calling for bringing back death penalty to Norwegian society after the bombing and shooting by Anders Behring Breivik. I hope your respected government will not consider capital punishment for the final solution and will be able to clam down the anger of the people.

I understand that this incident has caused a big tragedy (76 dead) which no one can accept it but death penalty is not an ideal solution for any problem. Norway is a developed country, high moral and abolished DP since 1905. It is a model of HR and Peace and it is well respect place for Nobel prize for the world.

With our awareness and concern, there are many ways of punishment to assure security and confidence for people, ie. extending the penalty period from 21 years to be more years, promulgate a new law for life sentence for heinous crime (not for every cases) or consider it case by case, etc.

Bringing back DP to the Kingdom of Norway will be a big shaking for our international norm and undermine our human right principle against DP.

We join the sorrow of victims' relatives and the grief of all people and God bless you all.

Somsri Hananuntasuk
Member of AI Thailand
ED of ANFREL

UPR Triumvirate

It bodes ill for progress towards abolition of the death penalty in Thailand that the three countries chosen to respond to Thailand's human rights report on October 5th, the UPR "triumvirate" are countries which themselves retain the death penalty.

Cuba, commuted the death sentences of the remaining 3 death row inmates in 2010. The last execution was carried out in 2003.
In Indonesia, 98 people remained under sentence of death at year end 2010. New death sentences that year totaled 7 and 10 persons were executed in 2008
In Nigeria the number on death row is approximately 824, and there were 151 new death sentences last year. The last execution was in 2006.

Figures for Thailand are: prisoners on death row 759; death sentences in 2010,53; most recent executions, 2 persons in 2008.
In summary, Cuba is very low on the list of retentionist countries, while Indonesia, Nigeria, and Thailand are comparable middle level executioners. The only hope of strong recommendation to abolish the death penalty rests with interventions from countries attending the UPR.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One must not shuffle about with the death penalty. In 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a second Human Rights Plan for the years 2009 to 2013. In section 3.1 of the plan we are informed that Parliament has discussed the death penalty, agreeing to abolish the penalty and to replace it with life imprisonment. The document originates from the Ministry of Justice. In an annex to the plan, government ministries and departments, respond to the plan, accepting its proposals. Among the signatories are Mr. Kasit Phirom, Minister of Foreign Affairs. On October 5th, Thailand is scheduled to present itself for a Universal Peer Review (UPR) of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at present displays a report which the Royal Thai Government will present at the Review. Strangely, there is no mention of abolition of the death penalty. It is impossible that this is some careless omission. In its previous appearance before the UN Human Rights Council the Government was advised that current interpretation of international law recommends abolition. Since that time the UN General Assembly has voted three times in favour of a Moratorium on executions worldwide to be accompanied by national reflection on abolition.
What is the Government doing? Have they reversed the decision in favour of abolition? Ominously, regarding the death penalty, the UPR submission speaks of the importance of paying attention to public opinion throughout the country. By this statement, it appears that the Government is falling back on an old cliche, that abolition must wait a majority in public opinion. As the government, now three years into the human rights plan, has made no effort to introduce a public debate or to present evidence for an informed discussion, we can only assume that it intends yet again to quote the uninformed opinion of a majority to block progress on abolition. This is a failure in moral leadership, and a betrayal of the stand taken in the 2nd human rights plan. Is this a decision of the Ministry of Justice? By what right do they reject the plan and the signatories who accepted its proposal? Will they try to justify this stand in Geneva in the coming October, or hope that it will quietly pass unnoticed?

Protest against the death penalty for homosexuality

Death Penalty Thailand on Saturday 25th June joins in world rejection of the death penalty for homosexuality.

Nine countries still enforce the death penalty against homosexuals:
Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Soudan, Yémen.

Allah is All-merciful

Conference on Prison Conditions in Thailand

As the possibility arises that Thailand will replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, we turn our attention to conditions of long term imprisonment. On 31st May UCL organised an afternoon conference on prison conditions in Thailand. What follows is a BBC report on the conference.
Prisoners in Thailand kept 'shackled and cramped'
By Vaudine England BBC News, Bangkok
An independent rights group in Thailand, the Union for Civil Liberties, has opened a campaign to improve conditions in Thailand's jails. It has issued a report on prisons which highlights overcrowding, the use of shackles and the lack of medical care. The group has campaigned against the death penalty and praises the government's promise to commute death sentences to life imprisonment.
That makes improving prison conditions even more important, it says.
Thailand's prisons are built to hold about 100,000 people - but according to the government's own figures, they are holding more than twice that number.
As a result, the conditions, says the Union for Civil Liberties, are horrendous.
People have to sleep in tight rows on hard floors. In these sleeping cells, each prisoner has an average of one square metre - as opposed to the four to six square metres described as the minimum by the Council of Europe.
Danthong Breen, chairman of the union, says the overcrowding is shocking.
"In the women's prison it's particularly bad. You have 200 women in a single cell," he told the BBC. "If one of them has to get up at night to go to the toilet, they all shift a bit and when she comes back the space is gone and she has to stand up all night.
"The level of crowding is inhuman and inhumane."
The other horror, he says, is the widespread use of shackles.
These are welded on to the ankles of long-term prisoners and are not removed, even during illness, until the sentence is served.
The United Nations has criticised the practice. The Thai foreign ministry has promised to end it. The constitutional court ruled the practice was wrong.
But the reality of the over-crowding and a ratio of warders to prisoners of about one to 45, makes the practice hard to stamp out.
Prisoners with money are able to improve every aspect of their life behind bars, Mr Breen says. But a lack of government money is holding back investment in new facilities and extra staff.
The civil liberties group suggests Thailand could look more at using non-custodial sentences. It estimates at least half of those jailed are being held for drugs offences.
And it hopes that whatever government emerges from elections next month, the promise to no longer impose the death penalty is kept.

Not revenge, but forgiveness is sweet

Victim of 9/11 hate crime fights for attacker's life
Days after the 9/11 terror attacks, 31-year old laborer Mark Stroman went on a shooting spree in the Dallas area. In a drug-fueled mission of revenge, he killed two South Asian immigrants and shot another — Rais Bhuiyan — in the face at close range, blinding him in one eye.
Shortly after his arrest, Stroman boasted of his role as "Arab Slayer."
Now, as Stroman faces imminent execution in Texas, an unlikely champion is fighting to save his life: Bhuiyan, who spent years recovering from the wounds he suffered in the attack.
"I've had many years to grow spiritually," said Bhuiyan, a Muslim who immigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh and now works as technology professional in Dallas. "I'm trying to do my best not to allow the loss of another human life. I'll knock on every door possible."Bhuiyan began collecting signatures late last year on a petition asking the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute Stroman's death penalty sentence to life in prison without parole through his website World without Hate.
Among those supporting his cause are some relatives of the two victims who were killed.
'Unprecedented' The odds are stacked against Stroman, 41, who is held in the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, where he is scheduled to be executed on July 20.
The seven-member Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles holds the power to recommend a commutation to the governor, but it has only done so in one death penalty case since December 2000, when the current Gov. Rick Perry took office. That recommendation was denied by Perry.
By Kari Huus, Canada msn news June 3

Not in Our Name: Relatives of Victims on Death Penalty

One of the arguments most often quoted in support of the death penalty, in Thailand as elsewhere, is that it is necessary to give justice to relatives of the victims of capital crime. Increasingly these relatives are denying that capital punishment is in their interest, as the following newspaper account relates:

"As the country has increasingly turned against capital punishment as barbaric and horrifyingly prone to legal abuses, defenders are pointing to the emotional needs of the families of murder victims — “co-victims” to those who study crime — as justification. Many family members, however, have said they want no part of that.

When New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007 and New Mexico did in 2009, each did so with the support of co-victims. In Connecticut, the Legislature’s joint Judiciary Committee has now approved a bill that would repeal that state’s death penalty, again with the support of victims’ families.

The family members say that rather than providing emotional closure, the long appeals process in death penalty cases is actually prolonging their suffering. They also say it wastes money and unjustifiably elevates some murders above others in importance. In an open letter to the Connecticut Legislature, relatives of murder victims — 76 parents, children and others — wrote that “the death penalty, rather than preventing violence, only perpetuates it and inflicts further pain on survivors.” New York Times, 30th April 2011

Imprisonment for life without parole

As Thailand moves to abolish the death penalty, there are fears that, following US example, it will replace death by imprisonment for life without parole. The following leads one to doubt the wisdom of imitating US practice:

In the United States, dozens of 13- and 14-year-old children have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole after being prosecuted as adults. While the United States Supreme Court recently declared in Roper v. Simmons that death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to imprisonment until death with very little scrutiny or review. A study by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has documented 73 cases where children 13 and 14 years of age have been condemned to death in prison. Almost all of these kids currently lack legal representation and in most of these cases the propriety and constitutionality of their extreme sentences have never been reviewed.
Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life history. Some of the children were charged with crimes that do not involve homicide or even injury; many were convicted for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily responsible for the crime; nearly two-thirds are children of color.

Death Penalty in Thailand

Current Death penalty Statistics

For all crimes
Sex. Appeal Court. Supreme Court... Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.....432.............170......................74............................676
Female….46..............24.......................13.............................83
Total....478.............194.......................87...........................759


For drug related crimes
Sex....Appeal Court....Supreme Court....Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.......183..............42......................59.........................284
Female.....55...............1.......................12..........................69
Total.......220..............62......................71........................353



For crimes of homicide and others
Sex....Appeal Court....Supreme Court....Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.......249..............128......................15.......................356
Female…....9.................4........................1........................14
Total......258..............132......................16.......................406


Source: Department of Corrections, Bangkok, 30th March 2011

In 2010 the total number of those under sentence of death numbered 708. The increase to 759 is consistent with the 53 reported death sentences in the last year.

Execution of three Filipinos on drug charges in China

On Wednesday 30th March 2011, three Filipinos, Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, aged 32; Elizabeth Batain, aged 38, and Ramon Credo, aged 42 were executed by lethal injection in China. They were charged with smuggling heroin weighing 4 to 6 kilos into the country. By Chinese law the smuggling of a quantity exceeding 50 grams is subject to the death penalty.
Pleas for clemency made by the President of the Philippines were rejected by Chinese authorities.
In a statement made by a spokesperson of the Chinese government:
"In China, our judicial authorities handled the case independently and we grant equal treatment to foreign drug traffickers. The involved individuals rights and treatment are ensured and safeguarded according to the law. China has fulfilled its international obligations in the process.”
This is not so. In international law the death penalty may be inflicted only for the most serious crimes which is interpreted as intentional homicide. The UN Human Rights Council has insisted that drug related crimes do not come under the ambit of “most serious crimes”.
China must not deny the experience of most countries in the world, nor the shared moral sense of the majority in rejecting the death penalty

The three executed were drug mules recruited by foreign drug syndicates preying on jobless Filipinos, not professional drug dealers. In one of the cases there is doubt that the carrier was aware of the nature of the carried package. They appear to have been first time offenders.
They carried the drugs through an ineffective surveillance in Manila International Airport, a process which must be investigated.

The three condemned Filipinos were allowed to meet with their families for one hour before execution. One of the three was unaware that the visit was a prelude to her execution, and her family tried to hide from her the significance of their visit.

The drug trade is the largest crime problem in the world and cannot be solved by the death penalty. The Chinese government should study the case of Hong Kong where the death penalty has not been used in 40 years and where the drug problem is no different than in the comparable city of Singapore, which surpasses even China in its rate of execution per population unit (Evidence may be found on an earlier posting on this blog: See Archives; December 2008)

Many other Filipinos are under death sentence in China and elsewhere. The death penalty has been abolished in the Philippines for the last nine years.
13 Thai women are awaiting execution on drug charges in China

Thailand dissociates itself from countries which insist on their right to use the death penalty

The representative of Egypt in the United Nations General Assembly has presented on 10th March the "right" of a group of countries to retain the death penalty.

Thailand is no longer amongst this group, a choice consistent with its proclaimed decision to abolish the death penalty, in respect of the right to life of all human beings

"(d) Capital punishment has often been characterized by some as a human
rights issue in the context of the right to life of the convicted prisoner. However, it is first and foremost an issue of the criminal justice system and an important deterring element vis-à-vis the most serious crimes. It must therefore be viewed from a much broader perspective and weighed against the rights of the victims and the right of the community to live in peace and security;
(e) Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic,
social, cultural, legal and criminal justice systems, without interference in any form by another State. Furthermore, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations, in particular, Article 2, paragraph 7, clearly stipulates that nothing in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. Accordingly, the question of whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, and the types of crimes for which the death penalty is applied, should be determined by each State, taking fully into account the sentiments of its own people, state of crime and criminal policy. On this question, it is improper to attempt to create a universal decision or to prescribe to Member States actions that fall within their domestic jurisdiction, or attempt to change, by way of a General Assembly resolution, the stipulations under international law that were reached through a comprehensive negotiation process;
(f) Some Member States have voluntarily decided to abolish the death
penalty, whereas others have chosen to apply a moratorium on executions.
Meanwhile, many Member States also retain the death penalty in their legislations.
All Member States are acting in compliance with their international obligations.
Each Member State has decided freely, in accordance with its own sovereign right
established by the Charter, to determine the path that corresponds to its own social,
cultural and legal needs, in order to maintain social security, order and peace. No
Member State has the right to impose its standpoint on others.
The permanent missions to the United Nations listed below wish to request the
circulation of the present note verbale as a document of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
New York, 11 March 2011
1. Afghanistan
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. Bahamas
4. Bahrain
5. Bangladesh
6. Barbados
7. Botswana
8. Brunei Darussalam
9. Central African Republic
10. Chad
11. China
12. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
13. Democratic Republic of the Congo
14. Dominica
15. Egypt
16. Equatorial Guinea
17. Eritrea
18. Ethiopia
19. Grenada
20. Guinea
21. Guyana
22. Indonesia
A/65/779
11-26164 5
23. Islamic Republic of Iran
24. Iraq
25. Jamaica
26. Kuwait
27. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
28. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
29. Malaysia
30. Myanmar
31. Niger
32. Nigeria
33. Oman
34. Pakistan
35. Papua New Guinea
36. Qatar
37. Saint Kitts and Nevis
38. Saint Lucia
39. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
40. Saudi Arabia
41. Sierra Leone
42. Singapore
43. Solomon Islands
44. Somalia
45. Sudan
46. Swaziland
47. Syrian Arab Republic
48. Tonga
49. Trinidad and Tobago
50. Uganda
51. United Arab Emirates
52. Yemen
53. Zimbabwe

One more State in US abandons death penalty

Governor Pat Quinn signed into law on Wednesday 9th March 2011 legislation abolishing capital punishment in the State of Illinois, 16th State in the US to stop the death penalty. It seems that change in US must come one state at a time, such is the tenacity of the old way of vengence.
While signing the law, Quinn said: "Our system of imposing the death penalty is inherently flawed."
“It's not possible to create a perfect, mistake-free death penalty system."

Death Penalty persists in Asia

ADPAN REGRETS YET MORE EXECUTIONS IN TAIWAN

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) says the latest executions of five men in Taiwan on 4 March 2011 calls into question the Taiwan government's stated intention to abolish the death penalty.

This brings the number of executions to nine since last year and goes against the global trend towards abolition.

The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP), who are members of ADPAN, pointed out today that, "carrying out any executions at this point in time would violate both domestic and international law." Taiwan has legally committed itself to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2009, which includes the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and incorporated it into domestic law the same year.

The executions today of Wang Chih-huang, Wang Kuo-hua, Chuang Tien-chu, Kuan Chung-yen and Chong De-shu were carried out by shooting. None of the family members were informed before the executions took place.


Bizarre reasoning of Taiwan spokesmen.
Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) said on Friday that the latest executions were of people “who had committed atrocious crimes and who had killed between three and five people.”
He added that the five people executed had exhausted all possible legal avenues and “there were no reasons not to execute them. We had to deal with them according to the law.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) said he understood the dilemma of the government because of international pressure and the backlash from local civic groups, but said that if the government does not carry out executions, it will leave a bad impression on society and that it will not be fair for those on death row.
Wu expressed hope that the ministry would continue to execute death-row inmates and “complete the execution of all inmates this year.”
Entertainer Pai Ping-ping (白冰冰), whose daughter was murdered in 1997, said: “It is a good thing to execute them, because it helps to solve a lot of problems.”
“Isn’t it good for the government to save the money used to incarcerate them to take care of the underprivileged?” Pai asked.
James Lee (李光章), director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department of European Affairs Lee said Taiwan has been trying to make European countries understand that the executions were carried out according to the law, as Taiwan followed the rule of law.
As Taiwan is a country that respects human rights, it has been working toward reducing the use of capital punishment before a consensus is reached on revising the laws to eliminate the death penalty, he added.

Appalling, but wonderful

Giving Life After Death Row
By CHRISTIAN LONGO
Published:NYT, March 5, 2011
EIGHT years ago I was sentenced to death for the murders of my wife and three children. I am guilty. I once thought that I could fool others into believing this was not true. Failing that, I tried to convince myself that it didn’t matter. But gradually, the enormity of what I did seeped in; that was followed by remorse and then a wish to make amends.
I spend 22 hours a day locked in a 6 foot by 8 foot box on Oregon’s death row. There is no way to atone for my crimes, but I believe that a profound benefit to society can come from my circumstances. I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. But my request has been rejected by the prison authorities.
According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, there are more than 110,000 Americans on organ waiting lists. Around 19 of them die each day. There are more than 3,000 prisoners on death row in the United States, and just one inmate could save up to eight lives by donating a healthy heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and other transplantable tissues.
There is no law barring inmates condemned to death in the United States from donating their organs, but I haven’t found any prisons that allow it. The main explanation is that Oregon and most other states use a sequence of three drugs for lethal injections that damages the organs. But Ohio and Washington use a larger dose of just one drug, a fast-acting barbiturate that doesn’t destroy organs. If states would switch to a one-drug regimen, inmates’ organs could be saved.
Another common concern is that the organs of prisoners may be tainted by infections, H.I.V. or hepatitis. Though the prison population does have a higher prevalence of such diseases than do non-prisoners, thorough testing can easily determine whether a prisoner’s organs are healthy. These tests would be more reliable than many given to, say, a victim of a car crash who had signed up to be a donor; in the rush to transplant organs after an accident, there is less time for a full risk analysis.
There are also fears about security — that, for example, prisoners will volunteer to donate organs as part of an elaborate escape scheme. But prisoners around the country make hospital trips for medical reasons every day. And in any case, executions have to take place on prison grounds, so the organ removal would take place there as well.
Aside from these logistical and health concerns, prisons have a moral reason for their reluctance to allow inmates to donate. America has a shameful history of using prisoners for medical experiments. In Oregon, for example, from 1963 to 1973, many inmates were paid to “volunteer” for research into the effects of radiation on testicular cells. Some ethicists believe that opening the door to voluntary donations would also open the door to abuse. And others argue that prisoners are simply unable to make a truly voluntary consent.
But when a prisoner initiates a request to donate with absolutely no enticements or pressure to do so, and if the inmate receives the same counseling afforded every prospective donor, there is no question in my mind that valid organ-donation consent can be given.
I am not the only condemned prisoner who wants the right to donate his organs. I have discussed this issue with almost every one of the 35 men on Oregon’s death row, and nearly half of them expressed a wish to have the option of donating should their appeals run out.
I understand the public’s apprehension. And I know that it could look as if what I really want are extra privileges or a reduction in my sentence. After all, in a rare and well-publicized case last December, Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi released two sisters who had been sentenced to life in prison so that one could donate a kidney to the other. But I don’t expect to leave this prison alive. I am seeking nothing but the right to determine what happens to my body once the state has carried out its sentence.
If I donated all of my organs today, I could clear nearly 1 percent of my state’s organ waiting list. I am 37 years old and healthy; throwing my organs away after I am executed is nothing but a waste.
And yet the prison authority’s response to my latest appeal to donate was this: “The interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition.”
Many in the public, most inmates, and especially those who are dying for lack of a healthy organ, would certainly disagree.
Christian Longo, a prisoner at Oregon State Penitentiary, is the founder of the organization Gifts of Anatomical Value From Everyone.

Death Sentences in Thailand

There are 708 prisoners condemned to death in Thailand, two have been executed during the last eight years. The tendency is that death sentences are being commuted to life imprisonment by Appeal Courts. But the overall number of those sentenced is not decreasing. In the last year, 53 death sentences were handed down in Courts of First Hearing, showing that a breath of change has yet to reach the judiciary.
Meanwhile, the Government has declared, in its current five year human rights programme, an intention to abolish the death penalty. So why does the awful torture of living under penalty of death, shackled and in crowded cells, separated from the slight amenities of the general prison population, still go on?

Iran, Asia's second executioner after China

Iran is considered an Asian country, located on Asia’s Western border. As such it is on ‘The Next Frontier” where the death penalty plague still rages.
.
(Paris, 16 February 2011) – Other nations and the UN should speak out against a wave of executions in Iran, the Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi and six human rights organizations said today.
At least 86 people have been executed since the start of 2011, according to information received by the six organizations. At least eight of those executed in January were political prisoners, convicted of “enmity against God” (moharebeh) for participating in demonstrations, or for their alleged links to opposition groups.
The increase in executions follows the entry into force in late December 2010 of an amended anti-narcotics law, drafted by the Expediency Council and approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Officials have also vowed to step up enforcement measures against drug trafficking. Sixty-seven of those executed in January had been convicted of drug trafficking. The true number of executions may be even higher, the groups said, as there are credible reports that some executions that are not officially announced are taking place in prisons.
The recent executions also raise fears for the lives of two men, Saeed Malekpour and Vahid Asghari, believed to have been sentenced to death by Revolutionary Courts following separate unfair trials in which they were accused of “spreading corruption on earth.”
Iran executes more people than any country other than China. The hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners currently on death row may include more than 140 who were under the age of 18 at the time they allegedly committed their offence. International law prohibits the execution of persons for offences that they committed while under 18.
In many cases, lawyers of those sentenced to death are informed of their clients’ executions only after they have taken place, despite the legal requirement for 48 hours’ notice.

A Pause in Execution in Singapore

New Hope for Sentenced Malaysian
By Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Feb 4, 2011 (IPS) - A young Malaysian’s legal battle to escape the hangman’s noose in Singapore is finding new hope. "He has a 50-50 chance of being spared," Madasamy Ravi, the lawyer appearing for 23-year-old Yong Vui Kong, said in a telephone interview from the city-state.

The 41-year-old lawyer, who traded a lucrative career in corporate law in 2003 to become an outspoken human rights crusader, stepped in to take up Vui Kong’s case shortly after the Malaysian was sentenced to death in December 2009 by a Singaporean court that found him guilty of trafficking 47.27 grams of heroin. Vui Kong was only 19 when arrested in mid-2007 under Singapore’s draconian Misuse of Drugs Act.

The efforts to save Vui Kong won a reprieve mid-January when the Court of Appeal reserved judgment, in what anti-death penalty activists say is the young Malaysian’s last hope. Ravi argued in the court that his client had been deprived of a fair clemency process.

The lengthy appeals process has emboldened Singapore’s small group of anti-death penalty campaigners. "Vui Kong’s case since the sentence has taken a surprisingly long time. It has been dragging on and this, for us, is change from the status quo," says Sinapan Samydorai, a director of regional affairs at the Think Centre, a local, independent human rights lobby. "This is an opportunity to push for change."

Samydorai faces a formidable challenge. During 1991-1999, Singapore recorded 13.57 executions per one million population. Saudi Arabia, with 4.64 executions per one million population, was a distant second, according to a UN Secretary-General’s report assessing capital punishment.

But such numbers are far from conclusive, because the Singapore government has always been "secretive about the number of executions," says Lance Lattig, a South-east Asia researcher at Amnesty International.

"Singapore might or might not be in the first place (today) when it comes to executions per capita," Lattig said in an e-mail interview. "Either way, the government’s secrecy about its record on executions suggests that this is one indicator Singapore isn’t entirely proud of."

In November, 76-year-old Malaysia-based British author Alan Shadrake was sentenced to six weeks in jail for contempt of court and fined 15,400 dollars for the contents of his book: ‘Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore’s Justice In The Dock’.

Shadrake was arrested in July last year when he visited Singapore to launch his book. The book includes an interview with Darshan Singh, the chief executioner at the city-state’s Changi Prison. Singh reportedly executed about 1,000 men and women from 1959 till he retired in 2006, the book notes.

In at least 11 passages of the book Shadrake questioned the impartiality of the judiciary in making rulings on death penalty cases.

Critics question the rationale of the country forging ahead with a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers and murderers – while keeping the number of executions hidden.

"They justify executions to deter crime but they don’t publish the details," says Danthong Breen, chairman of the Union of Civil Liberty, Thailand’s oldest human rights organisation. "It is extraordinary. They treat the details of executions as a state secret."

But what is not a secret is the manner in which condemned prisoners meet their death: all hangings take place at dawn on Friday.

The law that sets out a mandatory death penalty for anyone trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin or over 30 grams of cocaine, and the manner of execution still enjoy wide public support, according to polls.

Bangkok Post Survey on Abolition of Death Penalty

The govt has declared an intention to abolish the death penalty, as announced in the human rights plan for the years 2009-2013. Do you endorse the govt’s plan?

* Start date:Dec 18, 2010
* End date:Dec 19, 2010
* Voters: 1,479 times

* yes
36.4%
* no
63.6%

Human Rights Day 2010

Parliament to debate dropping death penalty
• Bangkok Post Published: 10/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
As the World Day for Human Rights is celebrated once again today, Thailand has a new stance on the issue. For the first time, the government has declared an intention to abolish the death penalty, as announced in the human rights plan for the years 2009-2013.
On Oct 20 last year, the cabinet approved and proclaimed the Second National Human Rights Plan, which was circulated to all relevant government offices for adoption in a human rights programme to be implemented by ministries, departments and in the development planning of local authorities.
This second strategic plan promises a development of the legal system and its structure, including its enforcement for the protection of human rights according to human rights policy.
The most important measure relate to the death penalty. Parliament will discuss the abolition of the death penalty and its replacement with life imprisonment.
The parliamentary debate creates a different perspective to that of individual debate which is usually based only on moral arguments. From a political viewpoint, the death penalty is counter to the rule of law and respect for the human rights due in a democratic society.
There is great wisdom for a political perspective on the death penalty to be found in the experience of the Council of Europe, the vast association of 47 states that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and embraces a wide spectrum of cultures.
"Capital punishment brutalises society by legitimising cold-blooded killing as justice. It is a fallacy that it prevents violent crime or that it can be considered as justice," said the director-general of the EC on Human Rights in Strasbourg in January 2007.All its member states are convinced that abolition of the death penalty is a mark of civilised living. In a response to the counter example that US adherence to the death penalty legitimises capital punishment, the European Court of Human Rights argued in July 1989 that even the conditions on death row in the United States went beyond the threshold set by the European Convention on Human Rights. This is an indictment of the US practice of capital punishment as "unfair, indiscriminate, and arbitrary".
Now there are 58 countries that still retain capital punishment, while 104 countries have abolished it and 35 have stopped executions in practice.
At least 714 people were executed in 2009, though this total does not include China, which did not provide a figure. The 18 countries known to have conducted executions last year were: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, the US, Vietnam and Yemen.
In Thailand, 708 persons were condemned to death, 65 of them by the Supreme Court, according to figures of the Corrections Department as of August 2010.
It will be argued that the Thai population is massively in favour of the death penalty. As they will be, until the reasons for abolition are explained and laid out by an informed political leadership.
Already, the number of executions in Thailand has dropped to only two cases in the last six years. As in most other countries maintaining the death penalty, there is a dichotomy between legal procedure and actual practice.
While executions have virtually ceased, sentences of death are passed with the same frequency as in the past, leading to the misery of overcrowded jails and blocked legal procedure. Living conditions for prisoners condemned to death are inhuman, especially due to the permanent shackling once the death sentence is passed in the court of first instance - a practice prohibited in international law and ruled unacceptable by the Administrative Court.
Many members of the Thai administration are aware of the worldwide rejection of the death penalty and favour abolition. But the debate will not be easy. It is likely that there will be opposition to change from at least two important ministries. The Interior Ministry recently announced an initiative, relying on a mass signature campaign, to halve the quantity of drugs which would lead to a penalty of death, thereby almost doubling the numbers condemned.
The Justice Ministry has suggested proceeding with executions in cases where a royal pardon has not been granted within 60 days. Fortunately, the Corrections Department has refused to carry out executions where the process of royal pardon has not been explicitly completed.
As stated in the Second Human Rights Plan, the proposal is to replace the death sentence with life imprisonment. This needs careful consideration and expert advice. Life imprisonment can mean many things in many countries. Imprisonment without ever the possibility of release may even be more inhumane than the death penalty. In many countries a life sentence means a period of 15 to 30 years, with particular rules on when parole may be granted. It is unlikely that the Thai population, accustomed to sentences of inordinate length, would accept such a short period, suspecting that a corrupt system might allow inappropriate remission of sentence and release.
There is a genuine fear that violent persons would repeat their crime and many would prefer that all offenders be imprisoned for ever, rather than that some would be released and offend again.
An experienced representative of the Council of Europe has proposed that progress be made in stages, beginning with a moratorium on all executions. This allows a population to grow in acceptance and also gives time for an information campaign to promote a new appreciation of human rights where human life is inviolable.
There will be difficulties, sometimes after the occurrence of a particularly awful crime. There will probably be crowd-pleasing politicians who will call for restoration of the death penalty. Slavery, the mutilation of prisoners and, increasingly, torture have been banished from judicial systems. The death penalty too has had its day.
________________________________________
Danthong Breen is Chairman of the Union for Civil Liberty, a human rights organisation based in Bangkok.

Change in vote by Thailand regarding Moratorium

On 11 November the UN General Assembly's Third Committee adopted its third resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The resolution, adopted by 107 votes in favour, 38 against with 36 abstentions of which there were 17 votes in favour, 11 against with 8 abstentions from the Asia Pacific region.

The following countries from Asia and the Pacific positively changed their vote compared to 2008: Afghanistan (from against to abstention); Bhutan (from abstention to in favour); Kiribati (from absent to in favour); Maldives (from against to in favour); Mongolia (from against to in favour); Solomon Islands (from against to abstention); Thailand (from against to abstention). This is a notable and positive swing from Asia and the Pacific confirming regional steps towards abolition and the worldwide trend. is particularly encouraging.

For Thailand which changes its stance on any legal position at the pace of an arthrithic snail, this is a thundering advance. It reflects the fact that the Thai government has declared its intention to achieve abolition over the next five years in its published human rights policy for 2009 to 2013. Signed, sealed, and acknowleged by every government ministry and department.

Six Weeks Jail for Shadrake

The Shadrake case has reached its predicted conclusion in Singapore. As reported by the BBC:A Singapore court has sentenced the UK author Alan Shadrake to six weeks in prison for insulting the judiciary in a book he wrote about the death penalty.
The 76-year-old was found guilty last week, and faces a further trial on defamation charges.
He was also ordered to pay a S$20,000 (£9,585; $15,400) fine.
In his book, Once a Jolly Hangman - Singapore Justice in the Dock, he criticised how the death penalty is used, alleging a lack of impartiality.
Prosecution lawyers had sought a prison term of 12 weeks.
Shadrake offered an apology, which High Court Judge Quentin Loh called "nothing more than a tactical ploy in court to obtain a reduced sentence".
Shadrake's lawyer, M Ravi, said an appeal was unlikely to succeed.
He said his client was in ill health and regretted that he had received no support from the British public.
Mr Ravi added that Shadrake did not have any money and the fine could not be paid.
Judge Loh said that Shadrake would have to serve an additional two weeks in prison if he failed to pay the fine.
Malaysia-based Shadrake was arrested in July when he visited Singapore to launch his book.
The book contains interviews with human rights activists, lawyers and former police officers, as well as a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Singapore's Changi Prison.
It claims he executed around 1,000 men and women from 1959 until he retired in 2006.
"I think I've been given a fair hearing," Shadrake told the media after the verdict was issued last week.
US-based Human Rights Watch and other rights groups had urged Singapore to exonerate the author.
Separately, Shadrake is being investigated by the police for criminal defamation; his passport is being held by the police.

Is there no end to the legal shananigans of Singapore. They make a speciality of imprisoning the unimpeachable. If the offence were real the sentence would have been much greater! No doubt the aged owl in the background has been consulted. Another vindictive and senseless sentence which is a real cause of contempt for the Singapore legal system.
For a discussion of the true picture of Singapore's judicial system see:
"Beyond Suspicion?, The Singapore Judiciary", Francis T. Seow, Yale Southeast Asia Studies, 2006

Lobbying Thai Government on Abolition

The newly proposed Government five year plan (2009-2013) on human rights includes abolition of the death penalty, and promises a parliamentary debate on the issue. Members of parliament are little informed of the issues involved and it is certain that there will be strong opposition; both the Ministry of Justice and the Interior Ministry favour the Death Penalty.

This development poses a new task to those engaged in the movement for abolition, to make available to political parties and parliament, a summary of the arguments for abolition, from the point of view of political leaders. Following the recent participation in a seminar on the death penalty and drugs, of a notable Council of Europe spokesperson for abolition, Dr. Renate Wohlwende, we have become aware of the great achievement of the Council in abolishing the death penalty over the whole of Europe. We have translated into Thai and will make available to all members of parliament a small Council of Europe booklet which draws on the wide experience of the Council in answering questions and of pointing a way to abolition.
The following is a newly written forward introducing the booklet to the intended readers:
Forward
Soon, the death penalty will pass. Slavery too came to an end; today, it is inconceivable that individuals could own, buy and sell, other human beings. At present, we are striving to rid the world of torture. Slavery, torture, the death penalty were, each in turn, considered essential to uphold human society.
First, some enlightened persons realized that such practices were profoundly wrong. Then one country after another abolished them, while others fought a rearguard action, insisting on their ‘right’ to have slaves, to torture, and now to execute criminals.

The Council of Europe, its 47 nations being the largest regional association on earth, has been overseeing the passing of the death penalty which is now rejected by all its members. Throughout the years it has accumulated wisdom and experience in answering the worries of those who fear the transition to abolition from a practice as old as history. In this short booklet answers are proposed to all the questions and objections which have been raised. It offers arguments for leaders to ponder themselves and to propose to their citizens. The task is great, and is often aggravated by concealment in the past of facts and numbers relating to executions. Besides, the time is short. During the 2010 World Assembly for Abolition of the Death Penalty, held in Geneva, it was predicted that, based on the current rate of change in world opinion, the death penalty could end by the year 2015. The time coincides with that of the Second National Human Rights Plan for the promotion of human rights announced by the Royal Thai Government and which proposes abolition of the death penalty. It is time to explain to Thai people why the step to abolition is a step owed to human dignity. This modest booklet provides the essentials of that lesson.

Union for Civil Liberty

Singapore and the Death Penalty

Singapore is the most vociferous promoter of the death penalty in Asia. A British author has dared to question the justice system which is merciless in imposing the death sentence. He has been arrested and is presently on trial in Singapore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The government goes after the author of a book questioning the fairness of the courts; Jakarta Globe, October 18, 2010

This week the Singapore government is taking on a 75 year old British author for publishing a book arguing that the country's secretive but mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking is unevenly applied against poor and marginalized defendants while the wealty or well connected are spared.

If the past is any precedent, Alan Shadrake, who wrote 'Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock' and had the bad judgment to go to Singapore to publicize the book, can expect to be jailed for "scandalizing the judiciary".

The opening argument was made by a deputy attorney general, Hema Subramania. The Civil Division lawyer focused on 14 passages from Shadrake's book, arguing that "insinuations and imputations contained in these 14 statements constitute an attack to

on the entire judicial system in Singapore". She argued that the very title of the book contained an "underlying insinuation" that "Singapore judges have been guilty of misconduct and deserve to be judged".

In response, the defence lawyer, Ravi, argued that the "serious minded and compassionate" book had to be considered as a whole. "Only by reading the book by its entirety can one properly determine how a reader would understand and interpret the selected quotations", he said, adding that analysis of the judiciary was "a public duty to civil society"
The prosecution raised the issue of whether the content of Shadrake's book was true, an intriguing tactic since truth is not a defense to a contempt charge, but a judge can allow a defendant to argue issues voluntarily injected by the prosecution.

In discussing whether Shadrake had engaged in fair criticism, Subramaniam alleged that there was not "an iota of truth in any of the statements or allegations in the respondent's book". Ravi characterized the Singaporean government's response to his client's book as "somewhat hypersensitive".

Singapore, whose justice system has been heavily criticized for its political bias, has never lost a case like this, and unless something totally unexpected happens, it won't lose this one. In that regard, Shadrake's trial highlights not just the controversy over Singapore's use of the death penalty against traffickers in minute amounts of drugs, but the broader issue of freedom in speech in a city state where sticking your head up is an invitation to get it shot off.
A wide range of human rights groups say the Singapore courts are used as a tool to silence critics. Any political or press criticism of the government results automatically in defamation suits that have been unanimously won by the prosecution and fines and charges that have bankrupted the opposition and sent major news organizations scrambling for cover.

In July 2008, the International Bar Association issued a 72-page report concluding that “Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest
order. In the modern era of globalization, isolationist policies and attitudes are no longer tenable.”

For his part, Shadrake remains defiant. For his first hearing in the High Court, he entered the building holding up his fingers in a V for Victory salute and shouting “Freedom and Democracy for Singapore.” The government has since backed away from the criminal defamation charge, although it hangs in the air as a threat, and Shadrake was charged with a species of contempt of court called “scandalizing the judiciary,” in other words, writing something that could make the court system look bad.

In the months since his arrest – his passport was confiscated, marooning him on the island – he has been granting interviews, basking in his demi-celebrity, repeatedly reiterating his intent to fight the charge and undergoing an angioplasty for a blocked aorta. While the Singaporean government has offered Shadrake leniency if he would purge himself of the alleged contempt by apologizing, he has so far refused to do so.

He is being defended by perhaps Singapore’s most prominent defense lawyer, M Ravi. Sometimes, it seems that the defendant in every high-profile death penalty or free expression case in the city-state is represented by M Ravi. That is close to the truth. For a nation with a population of more than five million, Singapore has a tiny number of lawyers, about 3500. Critics argue that young Singaporeans don’t enter the law because they see the profession as a closed shop in which a handful of loyalist firms land the lucrative government contracts and litigation work; others, including Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew, bemoan a general lack of local legal talent. Many Singaporean lawyers seem reluctant to represent clients in politically sensitive cases. It is not advisable, lawyers say, to practice any kind of law that brings lawyers into conflict with the government.

That can’t be said about Ravi. In the last decade, he has represented death row inmates Vignes Mourthi and Shanmugam Murugesu, whose appeals were unsuccessful, and Yong Vui Kong, whose appeal is pending. It was Mourthi’s case that formed a major part of Shadrake’s book. Shadrake charged that Mourthi, a 23-year-old Malaysian, was convicted on the basis of a handwritten transcript of a conversation with an undercover officer. However, the officer faced allegations of rape, sodomy and bribery at the time he testified against Mourthi, and subsequently was jailed for 15
months on bribery charges. Those charges were kept from the court.

Ravi has an aggressive and somewhat discursive courtroom style that can yield dividends. In the Yong case, Ravi backed the government into a corner, forcing it to admit that the President of Singapore does not make an independent judgment on clemency petitions but merely executes the will of the Cabinet.

David Chong Gek Sian, the prosecutor, is not the usual hard-bitten career prosecutor from Central Casting. Rather, he looks and acts like the mild-mannered law professor he was. The man who will be leading the charge to imprison and fine Shadrake is not a criminal law lifer. After obtaining his law degree from the National University of Singapore and a master’s from University College London, Chong worked in a private civil practice for about five years before accepting a post at NUS. His academic
publications focus on maritime and arbitration law. During his years in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, he has worked in various policy positions as well as the Internal Affairs Division.

Chong is currently posted to the Civil Division, and contempt cases are,technically, civil rather than criminal actions. He has won before, in recent years successfully pursuing the Wall Street Journal Asia on a similar charge, resulting in yet another judgment against the paper and its editors as usual.

Justice Quentin Loh Sze On is hearing the case. Alan Dershowitz, the outspoken criminal defense attorney and Harvard Law School professor, has stated that he would rather defend a client before an old judge than before a new judge. In Dershowitz’s opinion, an old judge is more likely to rule fairly while a new judge is too concerned with promotion and the potentially career-debilitating impact of freeing an unpopular defendant.

Quentin Loh is a very new judge. He was appointed a judicial commissioner in September 2009, and was promoted to Judge of the High Court less than six months ago. The Shadrake trial is his first high-profile case with political implications, and it will be absorbing to see how Justice Loh handles the myriad evidentiary and procedural issues which Ravi will raise.

Justice Loh’s background is similar to the prosecutor’s. After obtaining a degree from NUS, Justice Loh spent much of his career in private practice specializing in construction, insurance and arbitration. Prior to his elevation to the bench, Loh was a managing partner of Rajah & Tann, the establishment law firm which has represented many of Singapore’s most important government-linked corporations, including SingTel and the real estate unit of GIC, the sovereign wealth fund chaired by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Under Singaporean law, there is no right to a jury. Loh will make the ultimate decision of guilt or innocence and, if he finds Shadrake to be in contempt, will determine the sentence. Consequently, despite the fact that the courtroom this week will be packed with lawyers, clerks, security and reporters, it could be said that Shadrake and his defense team will be performing for an audience of one.

That is not quite true. Justice Loh will be performing for his own audience, headed by Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, and a cast of cadres hanging about the Istana.

History Lesson: The Guillotine in Vietnam

Then...
Rusting in a war museum in Ho Chi Minh City's humid, tropical air, the guillotine was imported to Vietnam by French colonialists in the early 20th century.
GRUESOME: Prisoners had to lay face down, with their head slid through a wooden neck clamp, which can be seen on the guillotine displayed at The War Remnants Museum.
Another guillotine, also abandoned by the defeated French, is in Vietnam's northern capital, Hanoi. With hands tied behind their back, each victim was forced to stand, facing a wooden plank, and was then strapped against it. The plank would then be turned horizontally to form a bench, thrusting the person face down so their head could be slid through the guillotine's wooden, two-part, vertical lunette neck clamp.
If not blindfolded, they could stare into a wooden "zinc head tub" bucket, or wicker basket, into which their head would soon drop. The bucket was shielded by a wooden screen to contain any splashing blood.
The guillotine's looming 4.5-metre-tall frame consists of two upright beams, about 38 centimetres apart. To perform a beheading, an executioner stands next to the frame and releases a metal lever allowing a spring-pincer, at the top of the guillotine, to release the heavily weighted, slanted blade.
In the blink of an eye, the 50-kilogramme, razor sharp diagonal steel blade descends, with the speed of gravity, inside a two-metre-long greased track. The detached head falls forward. The blade simultaneously hits two shock-absorbing metal springs, embedded in each side at the base of the vertical frame, to protect the guillotine from the force of the impact, resulting in a few post-chop bounces of the blade.
The executioner could then choose to hold up the head by its hair, and show it to onlookers. The decapitated body would be rolled off the bench and into a long, rectangular, wicker or cane body basket situated alongside the guillotine.
The basket was usually lined with flattened zinc, sprinkled with blood-absorbing sawdust and capable of holding four bodies.
A dangling rope, permanently looped over a brass pulley at the top of the guillotine's frame _ and attached to the top of the blade _ was then pulled, slowly hoisting the blade for the next kill. The guillotine is portable, designed to be disassembled.
Bangkok Post, "America and the Guillotine", 19th September 2010

And Now...
Executions: Condemned criminals are taken before dawn to a desolate site, read the court’s verdict, offered a bowl of noodle soup and a cigarette, and allowed to write a last letter home.
Then they are tied to a wooden pole, gagged with a lemon and blindfolded, and shot by five policemen. The commander then fires a last “humane shot” into the convict’s ear. According to reports in the official press, many policemen suffer trauma after completing their duty as “executioners”.
....
Statistics on the number of death sentences and executions are not made public. Indeed, following criticisms by international human rights organisations, in January 2004, Vietnam adopted a decree classifying death penalty statistics as “state secrets”. According to the Vietnamese and international press, at least 100 people are executed each year in Vietnam. In 2007, 104 death sentences were pronounced, including 14 women. In 2010, the official legal magazine Phap Luat (Law) reported 11 death sentences for the month of January alone.
"Vietnam: from 'Vision' to Facts", FIDH/VCHR September, 2010