Declaration of Sharia in Brunei

Brunei is considered an abolitionist country. No known executions have occurred in Brunei since 1957. All that ends today with the declaration of implementation of Sharia law.
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said in a speech that a new Sharia Penal Code had been gazetted Tuesday and would "come into force six months hereafter and in phases".
Based on the details of particular cases, punishments can include stoning to death for adulterers, severing of limbs for theft and flogging for violations ranging from abortion to consumption of alcohol, according to a copy of the code.
"By the grace of Allah, with the coming into effect of this legislation, our duty to Allah is therefore being fulfilled," said the sultan, now 67 years old.
Where is AICHR, the supposed organ of human rights in ASEAN?

บทนำ abolitionthai

 

วันต่อต้านโทษประหารชีวิตสากลในปี 2556 นี้ (World Day for Abolition of the Death Penalty) สมาคมสิทธิและเสรีภาพของประชาชน – สสส.(Union for Civil Liberty – UCL) ได้มีการจัดทำเว็บไซต์ภาษาไทยขึ้นเพื่อจุดประสงค์ในการเผยแพร่ความรู้เกี่ยว กับการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตเพื่อการก้าวไปสู่การยกเลิกโทษดังกล่าวในประเทศ ไทย ซึ่งจะมีการเสนอเรื่องดังกล่าวต่อรัฐสภาในอนาคตอันใกล้รวมถึงให้ประเทศไทย

สิทธิในการมีชีวิต (Right to Life) เป็นสิทธิมนุษยชนขั้นพื้นฐานและเป็นต้นกำเนิดของสิทธิมนุษยชนด้านอื่นๆ สิทธิในการมีชีวิตนี้มักจะถูกกล่าวหาเป็นสิทธิที่ขัดขวางการลงโทษประหาร ชีวิตต่อผู้ซึ่งละเมิดสิทธิในการมีชีวิตของผู้อื่น ซึ่งถ้อยคำเหล่านี้อาจะเป็นสิ่งที่ถูกต้องในอดีตซึ่งเป็นช่วงเวลาที่สังคม ยังไม่ได้มีการพัฒนาระบบกระบวนการยุติธรรมเพื่อรับมือกับอาชญากรรมและปกป้อง ประชาชนในสังคม อย่างไรก็ตาม ในประเทศประชาธิปไตยที่พัฒนาแล้ว ซึ่งกระบวนการยุติธรรมมีประสิทธิภาพในการรับมือกับอาชญากรรมและเป็นเครื่อง มือในการปกป้องประชาชนในสังคม โทษประหารชีวิตกลายเป็นสิ่งที่รุนแรงและโหดร้ายซึ่งไม่ได้ช่วยป้องกันการ เกิดอาชญากรรมร้ายแรงแต่อย่างใด และยังจะเป็นการลดคุณค่าของชีวิตของมนุษย์คนหนึ่งลงด้วย

เรื่องการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตนี้เป็น เรื่องที่ต้องใช้เวลาในการทำความเข้าใจ และการสำรวจความคิดเห็นของประชาชนโดยที่ไม่ได้ให้ข้อมูลความรู้เกี่ยวกับผล กระทบของโทษประหารชีวิตและเหตุผลว่าทำไมถึงควรยกเลิกโทษดังกล่าว ไม่สามารถนำมาใช้เป็นแนวทางในการทำให้เกิดสิ่งที่ถูกต้องในสังคมได้ เว็บไซต์นี้จะนำเสนอเกี่ยวกับเหตุผลของการต้อง ซึยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตในมุมมองของสิทธิมนุษยชนซึ่งได้รับการยอมรับใน ประชาคมโลกส่วนใหญ่

เรายินดีที่จะรับฟังความคิดเห็นของท่านและตอบคำถามเกี่ยวกับประเด็นการยก เลิกโทษประหารชีวิต หวังว่าการแลกเผลี่ยนทัศนคติในครั้งนี้สามารถทำให้ความกลัวและความสงสัย เกี่ยวกับการยกเลิกโทษประหารชีวิตนั้นหมดไป และทำให้การใช้โทษประหารชีวิตกลายเป็นสิ่งที่คงอยู่แต่เพียงในประวัติศาสตร์ เท่านั้น

Letter on Abolition to Miinister of Justice from World Coalition and FIDH

H.E. Chaikasem Nitisiri, Minister of Justice
22nd Floor Software Park Building
         Chaeng Wattana Road
         Pakkred, Nonthaburi 11120, Thailand

Paris, 8 October 2013

 Dear Minister of Justice,

On the eve of the 11th World Day Against the Death Penalty, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (World Coalition) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) write to you to urge the Government of Thailand to take immediate steps to abolish the death penalty, an irrevocable, inhuman, cruel and degrading punishment that does not make society safer.

The World Coalition and FIDH also welcome the organization of the expert seminar on moving away from the death penalty in South East Asia by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice of Thailand which will take place in Bangkok on 22-23 October 2013.

Thailand is one of the 58 retentionist countries which still carry out the death penalty. The last execution took place in August 2009 when two convicted drug traffickers were executed by lethal injection.

In August 2012, Thailand abolished the death penalty for offenders under 18 years of age and reduced life imprisonment for minors to 50 years. On 16 August 2012, a royal pardon was announced whereby all prisoners who have been sentenced to death and whose cases have reached a final verdict would have their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. In December 2010 and 2012, Thailand abstained during the UNGA vote on a resolution for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. It had previously voted against it in 2007 and 2008.

The World Coalition and FIDH hope that these positive steps indicate a growing political will on the part of the Government of Thailand to move progressively and expeditiously towards abolition.

We are concerned, however, that Thai courts continue to hand down new death sentences every year, including for drug-related offenses, in contravention to the recommendation of the UN Human Rights Committee in 2005. Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires States that still retain the death penalty to restrict its use to only the “most serious crimes”, which drug-related offenses are not.

We further regret that Thailand did not accept the ten recommendations on abolition or moratorium it received from UN Member States at the Universal Periodic Review in October 2011, and urge Thailand to reconsider its position on these important recommendations.

The global trend towards abolition is strong and unmistakable. Two of Thailand’s fellow ASEAN Member States, Cambodia and the Philippines, have abolished the death penalty while no executions have been reported in Burma and Laos in the last decade. According to the United Nations, approximately 150 countries have abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium, either in law or in practice. Many countries have abolished the death penalty when public opinion was still in favour of it, and this demonstrates that political courage is needed to steer societies towards a more compassionate and less violent future, and to ensure the full respect for the right to life, as guaranteed by the ICCPR.

Thailand’s second National Human Rights Action Plan (2009-2013) includes the review of laws which permit capital punishment and the replacement of capital punishment with life imprisonment as indicators of success. The Human Rights Plan will be renewed this year and the World Coalition and FIDH encourage Thailand to make abolition of the death penalty one of the key recommendations for the third Human Rights Plan.

Thank you for your serious consideration of our recommendations and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,
Florence Bellivier      

WCADP President

Karim Lahidji

FIDH President  

Introducing a Sister Site

Dear followers of deathpenaltythailand,
The original concept of this site was that it would contain posts in both Thai and English. However, the news sources are mostly in English and a bottleneck in translation has resulted in a patent ascendency of the English language. Which ill serves Thai followers. Meanwhile, the cause of abolition in Thailand has been advancing. from a dream perspective to quasi real plans to attain abolition.
The nub of the problem is a lack of political will to achieve abolition as explained in a recent post. However, the word in the street is that the will of the Thai people must be consulted on any movement for abolition. Well and good, but we know already what the response of uninformed opinion will be.
There is no programme of providing the Thai people with information on the arguments for abolition and why the trend to abolition has become so strong a worldwide current. 
UCL responds to this situation by dedicating a 100 per cent Thai language website to meet this need. Some of the material will be mined from deathpenaltythailand. Other parts will be inspired by the unique requirements of a Thai site.
We warmly invite Thai readers of deathpenaltythailand to patronise the new Thai site. Our English language followers may browse a little to see what the new site may offer. 
While the English language site is enabled by a wish and a prayer, more material support is needed to launch a Thai site. We gratefully acknowledge modest support by the European Union to ensure the first six months of this site. There is no doubting the sincerity and dedication of our European partners to the cause of abolition of the death penalty. An appreciation of the inalienable value of human life is Europe at its best. It was born with the Greek miracle, birthstone of humanism and democracy, nurtured in the renaissance and the rediscovery that man is the measure of all things, brought to maturity in the age of enlightenment, tested in the fire of fascism and Nazism, and proclaimed in the glorious Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when European thinkers discovered that their ideals had common ground with the ideals of history and development in all cultures of the world, as exemplified in the first article that all men are brothers, "and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". The site URL is abolitionthai.com

World Day Against the Death Penalty

10^th October marked the 11^th World Day against the death penalty. We mark the day by reactions

 World Day 1

"Justice that kills is not justice", 42 countries that have signed a joint call for the abolition of the death penalty believe.

According to the signatories, death penalty meant inherent inhumanity.  "The death penalty is not only an intolerable affront to human dignity, its use goes hand in hand with numerous violations of the human rights of the condemned and their families. Moreover, capital punishment has no positive impact on crime prevention or security and does not in any way repair the harm done to the victims and their families."

"The aim of our appeal is not to deliver a lecture, but to share our experience as well as our conviction. If the history of the abolition of the death penalty in our various countries has taught us anything, it is that the path is long and hard. Capital punishment was not repealed overnight. Its abolition became a reality only as a result of increasing awareness and constant collective effort. It was through perseverance and in gradual stages that the number of executions fell, the list of crimes punishable by death was narrowed, justice became more transparent, de facto moratoriums on executions were established and that - finally - the death penalty disappeared. It is this process that countries that still carry out executions in the name of justice must go through."

This joint call to abolish the death penalty is signed by the following ministers of foreign affairs:
Ditmir Bushati (Albania), Gilbert Saboya Sunyé (Andorra), Michael Spindelegger (Austria), Didier Reynders (Belgium), Zlatko Lagumd?ija (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Kristian Wigenin (Bulgaria), Vesna Pusić (Croatia), Ioannis Kasoulides (Cyprus), Jan Kohout (Czech Republic), Villy Søvndal (Denmark), Urmas Paet (Estonia), Erkki Tuomioja (Finland), Laurent Fabius (France), Nikola Poposki (FYR Macedonia), Guido Westerwelle (Germany), Evangelos Venizelos (Greece), János Martonyi (Hungary), Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson (Iceland), Eamon Gilmore (Ireland), Emma Bonino (Italy), Edgars Rinkēvičs (Latvia), Aurelia Frick (Liechtenstein), Linas Antanas Linkevičius (Lithuania), Jean Asselborn (Luxembourg), George Vella (Malta), Natalia Gherman (Moldova), José Badia (Monaco), Igor Lukšić (Montenegro), Frans Timmermans (Netherlands), Espen Barth Eide (Norway), Rui Machete (Portugal), Titus Corlățean (Romania), Pasquale Valentini (San Marino), Ivan Mrkić (Serbia), Miroslav Lajčák (Slovakia), Karl Erjavec (Slovenia), José Manuel García-Margallo (Spain), Carl Bildt (Sweden), Didier Burkhalter (Switzerland), Ahmet Davutoğlu (Turkey), Leonid Koschara (Ukraine) and William Hague (United Kingdom).

World Day 2

From a meeting held in the Faculty of Law of the University of Kabul:

The questions and remarks raised by the audience (mainly students from the faculty of law of Kabul and NGO activists invited) showed a deep and sincere inclination in favor of death penalty.
As Afghanistan is at war (and has been during the last 35 years), it is understandable ; Robert Badinter mentioned in his "famous" speech in 1981 : war time and abolition are not compatible.
The debate was calm and interesting but for the Afghan students, it's clear that the death penalty is needed
- to deter criminals
- to punish criminals
- in a country where the police is weak
- in a country where the justice system is weak
- in a country where terrorism is widespread
- in a country where sharia law is a source of law (and sharia law allows in some specific cases and under specific circumstances the death penalty)
- in a country that has no money to keep detainees in prison for their whole life
- in a country where the prisons are not well guarded and criminals can easily escape.

World  Day 3
          Statement by the African Commission on World Day against the Death Penalty

On 10 October 2013, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission), joins the rest of the world in celebrating the 11^th World Day against the Death Penalty. The theme for this year’s celebration is: ‘’Stop Crime, Not Lives’’.

Scientific research on the impact of the death penalty has shown that its dissuasive aspects are not more effective than those of other forms of punishment, such as life in prison. By executing murderers, child rapists and other perpetrators of barbaric acts in order to calm the grief of families of victims, we are moving closer to the notion of vengeance which brings to mind the ancient era of private justice when victims and their families took the law into their own hands. The death penalty, by its absolute and irreparable nature, is incompatible with any policy to reform offenders, is against any system based on respect for human beings, impedes the unity and reconciliation of people emerging from conflict or serious crimes, and jeopardises criminal justice by making it absolute whereas it has to remain attentive to possible errors.  

In Africa, 17 countries have abolished the death penalty in their laws and justice systems, while 20 other States have observed a de facto moratorium for more than ten years. African states that have legally abolished the death penalty are Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, SaoTome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, and Togo.

The African Commission is concerned by the wave of executions that have recently been carried out in some African countries, in particular in the Edo State of Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Botswana and The Gambia where nine people who had spent years on death row were secretly executed.  

The African Commission is further concerned at the increasing number of death sentences handed down by courts which increases the number of people on death row.

Justice Minister of Zimbabwe, wants death penalty abolished

 Justice Minister of Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has thrown his weight behind the anti-death penalty campaign and pledged to push for the abolition of capital punishment.

Mnangagwa, who is a death penalty survivor, was addressing activists after a march organized by Amnesty International Zimbabwe to mark the World’s Death Penalty Day in Harare.

Death Penalty in Thailand

Death Penalty Statistics - 30th September 2013

Condemned Prisoners
Legal Process Complete                         112
Before Appeal Court                              430
Before Supreme Court                           152
     Total                                                 694

Legal Process Complete - Details
  Crime                           Male         Female           Total
  Drug Cases                    41                8                  49
  Homicide Cases             62                1                  63
  Combined                    103                9                112

Source: Department of Corrections
As provided to Union for Civil Liberty: 7th October 2013

Where does Thailand stand?

Prospects for abolition in Thailand

One: prolongation of present status. Statements have been made by high ranking officials of the Ministry of Justice that further executions are unlikely. In 2019 ten years will have passed since the last executions and Thailand will be a considered ‘de facto’ abolitionist by the international community. However ‘de facto’ abolition may be abandoned at any time and is not a true abolition which consists of explicit legal declaration and acceptance of the requirements of international conventions.

Two: meanwhile Thailand is pursuing a plan for abolition first proposed in the second five year human

rights plan, 2009 to 20013, and reappearing in more detailed form in the draft of a third five year plan, 2014 – 2018.This latest proposal outlines a programme which will include research on required legal and constitutional changes, plans on consultation of public opinion in four regional meetings, and a subsequent debate in parliament on the death penalty. The programme is being organized by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of the Ministry of Justice, supported by an academic team in charge of the research and presentation of the results.

The proposals of the 3rd Human Rights Plan are defective in several ways. Abolition of the death penalty in any country depends on political leadership and a strong will to achieve abolition. Such a will and leadership are absent in Thailand. This is reflected in an inadequate budget of two million baht available to the Department responsible for the planned activities, and the lack of any public statement of government intent or interest.

Besides, there is no mention of a campaign to inform the public of the issues involved in abolition or retention of the death penalty.

The policy outlined in option One may be seen as an avoidance of the issue by politicians not daring to favour an unpopular policy.

Politicians fail Thailand, judges can lead the way

The World Congress against the Death Penalty recently called upon Judges in countries whose books still retain the capital punishment to use their discretionary power to individualise sentences, to not sentence to death or to encourage juries to decide not to condemn to death.

Countries Retaining the Death Penalty, 30th June 2013

Retentionist: 40
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Chad, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine*, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan*, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Vietnam and Yemen.
 
Countries which are liberal democracies in bold type
*indicates countries not members of UN
Source: Hands Off Cain

Aftermath of the World Congress - back to Thailand

Thai Government spokesperson reveals Thai position on death penalty

In a discussion entitled Global Trend toward Abolition of the Death Penalty hosted on 27 June 2013 by Department of Rights and Liberty Protection Mr. Nitee Jitsawang, deputy director of the Thailand Institute of Justice spoke on the Thai position on the death penalty. He declared the Thai objective as de facto abolition, a status commonly ascribed to countries which have not executed for a ten year period. He indicated Thailand’s transition in the UN vote on a Moratorium from opposition to abstention as a major stepping stone on the way to abolition. He identified other major advances Thailand’s legislation passed in 2012 to withhold the death penalty for those under 18 years of age, and for pregnant woman. On the other hand he pointed to public opinion in favour of the death penalty as the great obstacle to abolition in Thailand. Nevertheless, the policy of waiting for the status of de facto abolition in 2019 would bring the day closer when Thailand would abandon the death penalty. He pointed out the huge task for government of constructing high security prisons in remote areas should the government decide to substitute permanent imprisonment without parole to replace the penalty of death.

This is sorry stuff indeed, when compared with the enthusiasm and convictions of the recent World Congress on Abolition. At the Congress the status of defacto abolitionist was declared ineffective. Such abolition is unstable and can be abandoned at will as in the cases of India and Pakistan. There is no substitute for a legal engagement to abolish the death penalty such as is contained in the 2^nd Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Cultural and Political Rights, or even formal response to the UN Moratorium call. Mr. Nitee is surely aware that Thailand’s halting advance to abstention from voting was due to pressure on the Ministry of Justice by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which is more attuned to the winds of change in the UN. The other large steps claimed by Mr. Nitee are merely official formulation of decisions long made before to spare the lives of under 18s and pregnant women, although in the latter case execution may still follow the birth of the child. In fact we are aware of only one execution of a woman, pregnant or not, in recent Thai practice, and one case of an under 18 where the actual age was not fully clear. It is deceptive to claim these measures as large steps in Thailand’s path to abolition.

The indication that Thailand is considering replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole is the most worrying indication of Thailand’s intent. The speaker conceded that such a punishment could be worse than the death penalty, and by perverted logic appeared to suggest that this was an argument to retain the death penalty. Whatever, we will fight against such a policy with the same vigour as we oppose the death penalty itself. 

Finally, the contention of the speaker that public opposition to abolition is the reason for government hesitation is specious. Three years after declaring a policy of abolition in its 2nd human rights plan the government has made no attempt to inform or educate the public on the matter. Will public opinion change of its own accord by 2019? 

In a message to the World Congress 2013 the UN Secretary General identified a lack of political will on the part of authorities as the main cause of persistence of the death penalty. As in Thailand.

The time scheduled for the Global Trend discussion was three hours, two hours for invited speakers and one hour for questions and discussion. There were three brief reactions from civil society organizations. One was from a Prachathai journalist who attended the Madrid conference and who was told by the organizers that direct invitation had been issued to Thai officials and members of government, but that there had been no response. There were no further questions or discussion. The meeting closed one hour ahead of schedule, an indication of interest in the subject!