Aquilino Pimentel Confronts Death Penalty in Thailand

Senator Aquilino Pimentel was leader of the successful movement for abolition of the death penalty in the Philippines. This week, 7th to 10th March he came to Bangkok to share his experience at a time when Thailand too is approaching abolition. The promise is made in the 2nd National Human Rights Plan, 2009 - 2014, but there are strong forces holding to the death penalty in Thailand.
Ex-Senator Pimentel spent over two days meeting with Thai senators, with officials of the Ministry of Justice charged with preparing the way for abolition, and with members of the press. The following two accounts in Bangkok Post and The Nation report on his activities.
 

Thailand to tell UN why courts hand down death

Bangkok Post: 10/03/2012

Thailand is to explain to the United Nations Human Rights Council next week why it has not yet abolished capital punishment.

Pimentel: Little deterrence

The session will be held in Geneva on March 15. The Thai position is that it has to wait for the result of a Justice Ministry study on the the country's second national human rights plan which includes an examination on the appropriateness of maintaining the death penalty.

Activists, however, urged the country to abolish capital punishment.

Danthong Breen, of the Union for Civil Liberty, said 140 of 192 UN member states have either signed a moratorium or have no death penalty. In the Asia Pacific region, 17 countries have abolished the death penalty for all offences but 14 countries, including Thailand, still have it.

As of February this year, 622 people are condemned to death in Thailand, he told a panel discussion this week at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT).

Of that number, 88 are on death row, all are men and half of them were drug offenders, Mr Breen said.

The last time an execution was carried out in Thailand was in August 2009 when two convicted drug traffickers were given lethal injections.

The Bangkok-based anti-capital punishment campaigner said he was concerned about an on-going effort to reduce the amount of drugs needed for a mandatory death sentence to just 10 grammes.

He said experience in other countries showed the death penalty is unlikely to be abolished by popular vote but through the efforts and moral convictions of opinion leaders.

Another campaigner at the FCCT discussion said studies show that capital punishment has little deterrence value.

Aquilino Pimentel, a former Philippine's senator, said the death penalty was also biased against the poor, the uneducated and the marginalised, at least in the Philippines' case.

Mr Pimentel, 79, spearheaded a three-year-campaign against the death penalty which resulted in its abolition in June 2006. "The death penalty existed for 485 years under Spain, then 110 years under the American occupation, and another 60 years under our own republic. [The campaign] was not easy, but with a determined social media, there should be a shining light," Mr Pimentel said.

Backed by the Bangkok-based Union for Civil Liberty and Amnesty International, the former senator has held discussions with the Justice Ministry, the Senate committee on justice and human rights, and the media on just how little deterrence capital punishment offers.

Another panelist Phongthep Thepkanjana, a former justice minister during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, said abolishing the death penalty should not be a controversial issue for the government if it is replaced by a stiff sentence without parole.

The former justice minister and a former judge said Thailand has conducted very few executions in past decades even though several hundred have been sentenced to death. The courts often commute sentences, they said.

 

Former Philippine senator urges Thais to scrap ‘uncivilised’ death penalty

Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation on Sunday

Civilised society should abolish capital punishment because it is inhumane, essentially based on a medieval concept of retribution, and risks innocent people being put to death, according to Aquilino Pimentel, a former Philippine senator who played an key role in ending the death penalty in his country in 2006.
Visiting Bangkok at the invitation of Amnesty International Thailand and the Union for Civil Liberty, 79yearold Pimentel urged Thais opposed to capital punishment to keep their “passion” burning, despite hearing that many Thais, including senior Buddhist monks, still support executions.
“A majority of Thais still do not support [abolition of the death penalty],” human rights lawyer Sarawut Prathumraj said. Sarawut told Pimentel that many Thais look back fondly to the 1960s and the era of dictator Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, who was known for summarily executing people accused of committing arson in public areas.
Thailand’s Human Rights Master Plan for 2009 to 2013 states that the Kingdom aims to abolish capital punishment by the end of the period, but the goal seems far removed from reality, as there is no visible movement towards that end at present.
Pimentel met and addressed the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chaired by appointed Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn. Members of the committee exchanged differing views with Pimentel, with one member defending execution by lethal injection – the method practised in Thailand today – as “humane”, and another saying that the death penalty was needed to rid society of its scourges. Another member told Pimentel that it was not uncommon for some convicts who are sentenced to death to have their sentences commuted and to eventually walk free after a decade or so in prison.
Pimentel argued that the death penalty doesn’t give condemned criminals the opportunity to reform themselves, while the risk of even one person being wrongly executed was too high for a civilised society to bear.
Pimentel said the notion of “an eye for an eye”, also known as the Lex Talionis principle of Roman law, was medieval and not suited for modern society.
“If Lex Talionis were to be used to justify the imposition of the death penalty as an act of retribution, then in those cases of murder or rape, before the criminals are executed, they should first be subjected to the indignities or outright tortures that had been inflicted on the victims so that the criminals undergo the same level of pain as that suffered by the victims,” he said.
The former Philippine senator also cited various works showing that the death penalty had no deterrent effect on criminality.
Somchai said after the meeting with Pimentel that the committee was interested in continuing to debate capital punishment, but added that “some people see the need for the death penalty to deal with those who are beyond [redemption].” He added that a compromise could eventually be struck, such as replacing the death penalty with long prison terms without parole, as is practised in the Philippines today.
Pimentel said that since the death penalty was abolished in his country, heinous crimes that would once have drawn a sentence of death were now punished by imprisonment for 20 to 40 years without parole. Some argue that long jail terms are an even worse punishment than death, he said.
One member of the Senate panel argued that it was better to kill a bird than keep it in a cage without letting it see the Sun, which was cruel and inhumane, like a long prison sentence. Pimentel said he couldn’t answer on behalf of the bird, however.

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 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

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?

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.

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.

13 Young Thai Women Condemned to Death in China

In the latest data from the Department of Corrections listed below, there are 68 women condemned to death on drug charges in Thai jails. The figure is sharply increased if we include Thai women condemned to death abroad. At the same time as we were debating in Bangkok the linkage of Drugs and the Death Penalty also reported below, 13 young Thai women were condemned to death in China on drug charges.
All of the women are under 40 years of age, the youngest is 20, and several others are in their twenties. The little that is known of their predicament is reported by an article in the Thai women’s magazine “Koosang Koosom“ by a reporter who accompanied relatives of the girls who were allowed to visit them in a Guangzhou jail in Guangdong province. A Thai monk accompanied the group and was allowed to address the young women for 4 minutes. Two newspaper reporters were present at the meeting but were prohibited to speak to the prisoners.
Some of the women are from Isaan. One 22 year old from Samut Prakhan had opened a beauty parlour in Pattaya where a young black man made friendly overtures to her. A woman in Aranyapradhet was also courted by a young black who invited her to accompany him abroad on the understanding that they would marry on their return to Thailand. A 33 three year old in Bangkok who graduated in accountancy often spent time on the Internet. She told her mother that she had a black foreign friend who was inviting her to help in carrying some documents in a cloth bag relating to trading in the South of Thailand. Her mother asked to meet this friend but her daughter left home. She phoned from Chumphon, then from the South of Thailand, and finally from Mumbai. In answering her mother’s question she said that she did not know the nature of the work she was doing. A final telephone call was from China, saying that she would return home in a few days. Ten days later a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed her that her daughter had been arrested and sentenced to death on drug charges in Guangzhou.
A 35 year old from Ubon Ratchathani was invited to Malaysia to go here and there. All of them ended their journeys in the Women’s Prison of Guangzhou and were sentenced to death.
On further enquiry the news reporter learned that the heroin is produced in Afghanistan. It is transported through Pakistan to India. The Thai women were the ‘mules’ who transported the heroin on the final stage to Guangzhou, a densely populated area which was the one of the new China’s rapidly developed prosperous centres, where the drug market also flourished. The 13 Thai women were seduced by promises of independence and freedom, to participate in the international drug trade, schooled by false lovers who made it all seem easy and without risk. Most, or all, are first time offenders who began by being duped to become minor players in a world wide trade where the profits go to the organizers and the pain is borne by the foolish carriers.

Details of their trial are unknown other than that their offence is drug related. China’s courts pass a death sentence for possession of a quantity of drugs exceeding 50 grams. (The writer of the article appears shocked by this limited amount, unaware that in Thailand the death penalty may be imposed for a quantity of only 20 grams). More persons are executed in China than in the rest of the world, but in recent years it appears that authorities are learning that the death penalty does not solve crime, least of all drug crime. They are aware too that abolition of the death penalty has become a criterion of civilized life throughout the world and that the barbaric, and often public, executions in China are presenting a revolting picture of an inhumane Chinese justice system. Already, a ruling has been made that all death sentences throughout the country must be reviewed by a central court, a measure reducing the number of executions handed down by incompetent and arbitrary courts throughout the country. In addition there is in place a policy of suspension of death sentences for one year to observe and assess the potentiality of the prisoner for reform. If after one year the prognosis is positive, the sentence of death is changed to one of imprisonment. In the most favourable of cases where the prisoner shows genuine regret and a will to reform, imprisonment may be reduced to ten years. This is the hope of the 13 young Thai women. One may be confident that the resilience of these women, and certainly their regret at having fallen into this awful trap, will lead to their emergence from the prison of Guangzhou. They will need the help of their families of which there is no doubt, and also of the support of the consular services of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, embodied in a programme called “Last Hope Project”.

Chinese imprisonment is extremely strict but also punctilious. The health and wellbeing of prisoners is guaranteed. Nothing can be taken for granted, there is no relaxation of security and nothing resembling a ‘human face’ to the prison system.
But when one compares it with the appalling conditions of imprisonment in the Thai corrections system, the arbitrariness of judgment, the death penalties imposed on the word of police witnesses, and what can only be called, the vindictiveness of the treatment of drug related convicted prisoners, the condition of the 13 Thai women in Guangzhou is not the worst fate of all. Would that a “Last Hope Project” could be extended to Thai prisoners in Thai jails. It is important that the fate of the 13 young women be known to Thai people. Popular opinion is likely to be sympathetic to their case and wish them well to return to their homeland. And, hopefully, this sympathy may extend to the unfortunates who suffer even worse conditions and less hope of a positive outcome, in our own jails on Thai soil.

18 Countries that Killed in 2009 Include Thailand

Around the world
* 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 the total does not include China, which did not provide a figure.

* The 18 countries known to have conducted executions in 2009 were: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, the United States, Vietnam and Yemen.

* Hanging, shooting, beheading, stoning, electrocution and lethal injection are common methods of executing people.

* The countries that executed the most people include Iran with at least 388, Iraq at least 120, Saudi Arabia at least 69, and the United States with 52. But China has likely conducted more executions than the rest of the world combined.

* There are 35 countries that in practice have a moratorium on executions. These are Algeria, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Kenya, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Congo, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Tunisia and Zambia.

* In the United States, death sentences and executions have been falling due to heated debate about innocent people being put to death, as well as the high costs of the process, including facilities and trial costs. There was a de-facto moratorium on executions from late 2007 to early 2008 as the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the lethal injection method, which it rejected in April 2008.

Death Penalty Warning

"The government's Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) has warned that people who are guilty of terrorism charges could face a possible death penalty."
19th May 2010

Response:The threat by the DSI that people convicted of terrorist charges in the current situation in Thailand could face a possible death penalty is ill-advised and ill-timed. It reveals the mentality of government agencies within hours of the largest massacre of Thai civilians in recent Thai history, that they are ready to threaten further death.
It is ill-advised to invoke a penalty which is against the most fundamental of human rights and which is rejected by the large majority of the nations on earth. Moreover, there is strong evidence that a threat of capital punishment is not an effective deterrent against any crime. It is ill-timed to invoke the charge of terrorism which the government has used as justification throughout the present crisis, before such a charge has been explained or proved by evidence, at a time when government responsibility for the deaths of unarmed civilians is been questioned. It can only add fuel to the fire of resentment widespread in the country. There most urgent need now is for understanding, reconciliation, and mediation. While justice is required for acts which are illegal, this justice must not be burdened with the threat of a punishment which is no longer acceptable in international law, and which would prolong the contempt of the right to life we have witnessed in recent days.
Finally, one may recall to the DSI that the second human rights five year plan on human rights, passed by the government in 2009 and acknowledged by all government ministries, includes the proposal to abolish the death penalty.

The Dignity of Mongolia

Mongolia announces moratorium on Death Penalty
"Mongolia is a dignified country ... and our citizens are dignified people," President Tsakhia Elbegdorj said in a speech to Mongolia's parliament. "Therefore, I ask Mongolia to put behind us this death penalty which degrades our dignity to death."

The BBC reported that one person was executed in Mongolia in 2008 and nine people are believed to be on the country's death row. Although abolishing the death penalty outright seems to be an uphill political battle for Elbegdorj, he has the power to commute sentences to life and to prevent any executions from taking place on his watch.

Mongolia has a population of 2.9 million and 9 people on death row. Thailand has 65 millions and 857 people on death row. Mongolia by its announcement of a moratorium will spare those 9 people from a degradation of dignity. Like Thailand, Mongolia had voted against the UN General Assembly vote in favour of a world wide moratorium on the death penalty, in 2007, and again in 2008.

Resumption of Executions in Thailand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executions in Thailand after six year break

Drug dealers put to death: Bangkok Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See link "Bang Kwang 24th August"

แถลงการณ์

เรื่อง ขอคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิตเพราะขัดกับหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน

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

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

ประการ ที่สอง คือว่า ทุกประเทศทั่วโลกต่างแสดงออกถึงการเย้ยหยันการลงโทษประหารชีวิต เพราะ ถือว่าการประหารชีวิตเป็นโทษที่ละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนขั้นพื้นฐานของความเป็น มนุษย์ ซึ่งหมายถึงสิทธิในการมีชีวิตอยู่รอดและมีความมั่นคงปลอดภัยในชีวิต นั่นเอง

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

ประการ สุดท้าย การลงโทษประหารชีวิต ไม่สามารถยับยั้งอาชญกรรมและการกระทำผิดที่เกี่ยวกับยาเสพติดอย่างได้ผล เมื่อเทียบกับการลงโทษด้วยมาตรการอื่น

สสส.จึง ขอคัดค้านโทษประหารชีวิต เพราะ ถือเป็นการลงโทษที่โหดร้าย ไร้มนุษยธรรมและย่ำยีศักดิ์ศรีของมนุษย์ ซึ่งไม่สมควรมีโทษนี้ ต่อไปในประเทศที่มีอารยะ และควรเปลี่ยนเป็นโทษจำคุกตลอดชีวิตตลอดไป แทนการลงโทษประหารชีวิต

ณ วันที่ 25 สิงหาคม 2552

ผู้แถลง ดร.แดนทอง บรีน ปะธานสมาคมสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชน(สสส.)

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

What Difference Does the Death Penalty Make?

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

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

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

Time Table of Seminars: June – July

Seminar 1 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: Postponed

Location: Central Thailand

Seminar 2 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: 30^th June 2008

Location: Mahachulalonghorn University

(Wat Suan Dok)

Chiangmai

Seminar 3 Buddhism and the Death Penalty

Date: 7th July 2008

Location: MahachulalonghornUniversity

(Wat Mahawanaram)

Ubon

Seminar 4 Islam and the Death Penalty

Date: 12^th July 2008

Location: Islamic Centre of Thailand, Bangkok

Seminar 5 Religion and the Death Penalty

Date: 15^th July 2008

Location: Office of National Human Rights Commission

Bangkok

Is this the model which Thailand follows?

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

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

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

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