How fast do the wheels of justice turn?

On the same day that a man under the age of 60  is condemned to death in a Thai Court of First Instance, he is shackled. The shackles are welded to his ankles and are intended to remain until his execution or until the death sentence is rejected by a Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, or by a Royal Pardon. In a judgement made by the Administrative Court such shackling is illegal and prohibited by the Thai Constitution. The judgement has been appealed by the Department of Corrections, three years have passed without a response from the Appeal Court, during which time the prisoner concerned has remained shackled.
In shackling prisoners the wheels of 'justice' turn very fast indeed.
However, when prisoners benefit from a Royal Pardon, the wheels of Justice turn slowly. A recent proclamation of Commutation of Sentence, dated 11th August, allows 90 days for its implementation. Which is hardly intended to mean that a delay of 90 days is mandatory or even advisable. Prisoners are assured by well meaning officials that the shackles will be removed, perhaps tomorrow. Is this extra frustration for a prisoner who has been shackled for years necessary or tolerable?   

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

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

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.

Once a Jolly Hangman

Singapore Justice in the Dock: Alan Shadrake, SIRD, Petaling Jaya, 2010
In November 2007 the United Nations General Assembly approved a world wide moratorium on the death penalty by a two to one majority. Singapore put itself at the head of the minority who voted against the moratorium, declaring its right to execute and that the death penalty was necessary to maintain law and order in the tiny state. It fiercely rejected the experience of most countries in the world and repeated again old arguments which have been rejected, not only on moral grounds, but also from the experience of criminology which demonstrates that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Quite apart from its opposition vote, Singapore spoke with a voice of righteousness and even moral superiority. However, there is always a weak point in the Singapore position. If, as it claims, the death penalty is maintained as a deterrent, why must it be so secretive about it. Everything to do with the death penalty in Singapore, the number of those executed, the process itself, is kept secret; one would expect that deterrence would require publicity.
At last the veil has been lifted. In his book "Once a Jolly Hangman", Alan Shadrake reveals more than has ever been known about Singapore's death practice. His main source is an interview with the 'Jolly Hangman', Darshan Singh who was executor of about 1000 men and women in the grim Changi Jail.
Shadrake further researches the cases of several notable victims of the hangman and of some who escaped Singapore's vaunted judicial system. The truth emerges that Singapore executions do not follow a just judicial system. Especially where foreigners are involved, those with power and wealth can escape the gallows, the poor and ignorant are hanged until they die.
It is not a well written book. There is a lot of extraneous material. There are too many printing errors as if it was never proofread. But it performs a unique service in letting us see the horrible reality of hanging, typified in the assurance given by the hangman to each of his victims, the last words they ever heard,"I am sending you to better place than this". But it is the hypocrisy of the Government of Singapore which arouses the greater horror which effectively says to each victim "Singapore will be a better place without you", unless there are reasons of state to let you go your way.
"Once a Jolly Hangman" is banned in Singapore

Sufficient Evidence

On July 2nd I attended the trial of a drug case which could carry the death penalty. The drugs found as evidence were 'discovered' by police in a car which had been parked outside the hotel room of the accused. He claimed that the car had been parked there by a friend who had promised to return to collect it within the hour. Plain clothes police arrested him in his hotel room in the account of the accused, but outside a 7/11 store according to police. He was brought to a police station where after an hour or so he was brought out to witness the search of the car in the presence of many police men standing around. All the car doors were open. A police man climbed onto the back seat, felt underneath with his hand, and produced a plastic bag of a crystalline substance, to the cheers and laughter of the onlookers. The defendant claimed that he had never entered the car, nor driven it. A receipt showed that the car had indeed been rented by the 'friend'.
Fingerprinting is a relatively simple technology which has been in use for over a hundred years. Surely it would have been easy to check the interior of the car for fingerprints of the accused, and the plastic bag found there. Nor was there a forensic examination of the hands or clothes of the accused for traces of drugs.
He may be condemned to death. On what evidence?

The Scandal of Shackling

The permanent shackling of prisoners in Thai jails who are condemned to death remains a serious scandal. The comment of the UN Human Rights Committee on this issue was especially forceful; “The use of shackling and long periods of solitary confinement should be stopped immediately”. UCL has followed the issue of one prisoner with particular interest. The prisoner submitted a complaint to the Administrative Court that his being shackled was against Thai law, prison regulations, and International Law. The Court responded by ordering that the shackles of this prisoner be removed while they considered the case. However, after the shackles were removed the prisoner, who was being held in Klong Prem prison, was transferred to Bang Kwang prison where he was again shackled. When the prisoner protested at such an infringement of a court order, the authorities replied that they knew nothing of such an order. Finally, on 16th September 2009, in a long and closely reasoned judgment, the Court handed down the decision that the shackles be removed. The prison was given 30 days to comply with the order. Two months later the prisoner remains shackled. The prisoner was informed verbally that the Correction’s Department was appealing the Court order. Details of the appeal are not available to the prisoner or to anyone else. The judgment applies only to the prisoner who lodged the appeal. Other prisoners must undertake a similar lengthy legal process to win relief.
Like most shackled prisoners, the above prisoner suffers from lesions caused by the chains, as shown in the accompanying photograph.
Meanwhile we are investigating reports that a prisoner remanded for deportation in the Bangkok Remand Prison has died on the 1st August 2009 from an infection caused by shackles. Fellow prisoners are prepared to testify but as the body has most likely been cremated, it is unlikely that adequate proof can be obtained.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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!

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

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'.

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.

Change in Draft Constitution favours abolition in Thailand

Charter drafters pave way for end to death penalty

The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) yesterday decided to remove the expression "death penalty" from its draft charter, thus paving the way for a possible future campaign to eventually end capital punishment in Thailand.

The assembly also supported a move that enables police to search suspects without a court warrant.

Removal of the words "death penalty" does not automatically mean an end to the death penalty, but future moves to end it will face fewer obstacles.

"It's good that the capital punishment issue has been adjusted [out of the charter] as it reflects the thinking of a society that doesn't resort to violence," said CDA member Kannika Bantherngjit.

"We should no longer resort to an eye for an eye and should look at the real cause of crime. Strong punishment is not right. It leads to society solving problems by force."

Postscript: In a referendum on 19th September the new constitution was accepted by a small majority of Thailand's population. While welcoming the omission of a phrase relating to the death penalty, we regret the passing of this unsatisfactory constitution forced on the country without consultation or freedom of discussion.