Report Says Revulsion Over Death Penalty Growing by
>Don Hill for RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY (RFE/RL).
>
>
>Prague, 23 June 2004 (RFE/RL) -- A Rome-based
>international anti-death penalty group says revulsion
>against state-mandated killings is spreading
>worldwide.
>
>In its annual report issued today, the group -- called
>Hands Off Cain -- says that a worldwide campaign in
>recent years against the death penalty is working. It
>says capital punishment, for the most part, is now a
>tool primarily of dictators.
>
>The group's executive director, Elizabetta Zamparutti,
>tells our correspondent in a telephone interview from
>Rome that death penalty abolition is a function of
>liberal democracy.
>
>"The problem of the executions is mainly a problem for
>dictatorial and illiberal countries, because in these
>kinds of countries we have seen that at least 98
>percent of the world total of executions are carried
>out," Zamparutti says.
>
>She continues, "This means that the campaign for the
>abolition of the death penalty is, first of all, a
>campaign for improving democracy all over the world."
>
>The report, which covers last year, says that the
>greatest number of state-sanctioned executions was in
>China with 5,000 killings -- 89 percent of the world
>total. Nations responsible for most of the remaining
>executions were Iran, with at least 145, Vietnam,
>Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Singapore, Sudan,
>and the United States.
>
>Even in the United States, where 65 executions were
>carried out last year, Zamparutti notes there were
>decreases in the number of death sentences handed
>down, in the number of people on death row, and in
>actual executions.
>
>Hands Off Cain was founded at the European Parliament
>in Brussels in 1993 and began that year a campaign to
>abolish capital punishment worldwide. Its immediate
>goal is to persuade the UN General Assembly to declare
>a moratorium on executions.
>
>Since its first effort in 1994 to win a European Union
>moratorium declaration, the group claims as victories
>European Union-wide capital punishment abolition and
>repeated anti-death penalty resolutions by the UN
>Commission on Human Rights.
>
>The group takes its name from the biblical story of
>Genesis, in which God put a mark on Cain so that
>anyone finding him would know not to kill him. Cain,
>as the story goes, had murdered his brother.
>
>The report says 133 nations around the world have made
>official decisions not to use the death penalty.
>
>Zamparutti says the picture actually is brighter than
>that.
>
>"And countries that retain the death penalty are 63,
>and not all of these put people to death regularly. In
>fact, in 2003, only 29 retentionist countries carried
>out executions," Zamparutti says.
>
>Hands On Cain says the value of a UN General
>Assembly-declared moratorium is that it would give
>states that still retain the death penalty an
>opportunity to educate their citizens about the idea
>of a new human right -- as the group puts it, the
>right "not to be killed" under the law.
>
>(More information is available at:
>http://www.handsoffcain.org)
>
>Don Hill has been a Prague-based RFE/RL editor and
>correspondent since the radios moved their operations
>to Prague in 1995.
>------------------------------------------------------
>There Is More To The Death Penalty Debate
>
>By Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Workers' Party and a law
>lecturer by profession. (Source: Workers' Party's
>HAMMER, Issue 7, 2004)
>
>There has been some "hoo-hah" lately over the report
>by Amnesty International in mid January 2004 entitled:
>"Singapore - The death penalty: A hidden toll of
>executions".
>
>In it, Amnesty International questioned various
>aspects of the death penalty in Singapore including
>its existence and application, and the fact that it is
>mandatory for certain offences, leaving the sentencing
>judge no choice.
>
>In its detailed response dated Jan 30, 2004, the
>Ministry of Home Affairs sought to correct various
>errors in the Amnesty report and to rebut allegations
>of secrecy surrounding death penalty cases in
>Singapore. The Ministry further made "no apology" for
>the "tough law and order system" here, and quoted
>various surveys showing the Singapore justice system
>being ranked highly by businessmen and expatriates for
>being "fair" and "transparent".
>
>While I do believe our criminal justice system has
>commendable aspects, an examination of its operation
>will show that, in our overwhelming desire to be tough
>on crime, our system has evolved into one where
>fairness to the accused person has taken significant
>knocks. It is my personal belief that wrongful
>convictions are entirely possible. The purpose of this
>quick opinion is to highlight some unsatisfactory
>features of the system and suggest possible areas for
>review to correct the imbalance, especially if we
>continue to send people to the gallows.
>
>Whether the death penalty should be retained or
>abolished is a contentious question even in the West,
>as witnessed by the fact that the countries of the
>European Union are dead against it while the Americans
>seem to have no problems with it. At home, many, if
>not most, Singaporeans seem to accept the need for
>tough measures against crime including having this
>ultimate punishment.
>
>Singaporeans have grown accustomed to the PAP
>government's "crisis mode" discourse, which, in the
>context of the death penalty, would be something like:
>"If we did not have the death penalty, crime would
>soar and Singapore would be crawling with murderers
>and drug traffickers". The trouble with such a
>discourse is that it breeds a "them versus us"
>mentality and does not open the citizen's eyes to the
>fact that, one day, he or his child may be a suspect
>in a criminal case. It also implicitly assumes that
>the police and prosecution do not make mistakes.
>
>It is not my intention here to dissect the arguments
>for and against the death penalty, but to highlight
>certain weaknesses in our criminal justice process
>which need to be urgently addressed if a person is not
>to be wrongly convicted and punished, in some cases,
>with death.
>
>Access to Counsel
>
>Although Article 9(3) of our Constitution provides
>that an arrested person has a right to consult a legal
>practitioner of his choice, this "right" has been
>whittled down drastically in its operation.
>
>Case law has established that the accused's right to
>counsel is subject to the exigencies of police
>investigations, and the accused may only exercise his
>right to counsel if it does not jeopardize
>investigations. Who will decide whether allowing a
>lawyer in will undermine investigations?
>
>The reality is that the police will be the judge of
>that and it is very difficult to challenge the police
>on their views of how to conduct their investigations.
>What this means for the accused is that he may get to
>consult a lawyer sometimes as late as 8 weeks after
>arrest, and in any case after police have extracted
>statements from him.
>
>Statements from Accused
>
>Clearly, an accused person's statement confessing to a
>crime is extremely incriminating, and, under our law,
>a confession alone without any other evidence is a
>good basis to convict someone. In fact, under our
>Evidence Act as interpreted by case law, a statement
>by a co-accused person which incriminates an accused
>may also alone be the basis of a conviction. This goes
>against the position in other jurisdictions which have
>consistently warned themselves against relying on
>accomplice's statements; after all, if one is in a
>sinking ship, it is human instinct to drag others down
>as well.
>
>Under our Criminal Procedure Code, a voluntary
>statement made by an accused to or in the hearing of a
>police officer ranked Sergeant and above becomes
>admissible in evidence at his trial. This may be
>unobjectionable but for the fact that the statement
>which the accused made need not be in writing i.e. it
>can be oral. What this means is that a police officer
>can make a note (even a mental note) of what he heard
>the accused person saying, without any acknowledgement
>from the accused as to the accuracy of what the
>officer is noting. The officer can then come to court
>later to testify that the accused had said certain
>things.
>
>The miscarriages of justice which occurred in the
>United Kingdom in the 1970s concerning the Birmingham
>Six and the Guildford Four bear remembering. There,
>suspects of Irish sectarian violence were convicted
>and sentenced to long periods of imprisonment, based
>on some forensic evidence and SIGNED confessions.
>After spending more than a decade in jail protesting
>their innocence, the forensic evidence was shown to be
>unreliable and the suspects were finally released. The
>suspects said they were coerced into signing the
>confessions. If such abuses or miscarriages can occur
>with signed confessions, what more with oral
>confessions unacknowledged by the accused?
>
>Access to Resources
>
>A person accused of a capital crime in Singapore does
>face difficulties in preparing his defence. He will
>usually be denied bail and be remanded in custody
>pending his trial, which means he can only talk to his
>lawyer in prison in person or through correspondence.
>He will thus be fully dependent on his lawyer and,
>possibly, his family's resources to secure factual
>evidence (e.g. witnesses) to support his defence.
>
>If an accused has finances and is able to pay his
>lawyer well, the defence will be able to go all out in
>doing its own investigations and spare no expense in
>putting forth the defence. However, where an accused
>has no money to engage a lawyer or the lawyer he
>wants, the state will assign one to him (note: only if
>the charge attracts the death penalty; in all other
>cases there is no state-funded legal aid).
>
>Lawyers who are assigned by the state endeavour to do
>their best for their clients. However, there are some
>constraints. For instance, if the assigned lawyer
>thinks that putting up a good defence would require
>him to travel overseas or to bring in a foreign expert
>witness, such expenditure would require approval from
>the High Court registrar, which may or may not be
>given.
>
>The Burden of Proof
>
>The prosecution in Singapore still has to prove its
>case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
>However, some laws have made things easier for the
>prosecution by presuming facts against the accused
>once certain basic facts have been proved. For
>instance, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, once the
>prosecution proves that a person has control over a
>container or bag, it is presumed that he knows the
>contents (even if the bag is locked up by someone
>else), and if drugs are found inside it, he is further
>presumed to know the nature of the drug. The burden
>then falls on him to disprove it i.e. the accused must
>prove that he did not know he was carrying drugs, and
>he must prove it on a balance of probabilities i.e.
>convince the judge that his version is more likely to
>be true.
>
>I can understand the frustration of the prosecution
>before these presumptions were introduced, in that the
>prosecution had to prove the intention or knowledge of
>the accused, which may not be easy at times. At this
>juncture, I am not certain myself if removing the
>presumptions is a feasible option.
>
>Nevertheless, the presumptions pose real difficulties
>for the accused particularly if they are foreigners
>traveling to Singapore for a short time or in transit.
>The persons who are their potential defence witnesses
>will also be stationed overseas, and it would be near
>impossible to locate them and bring them to Singapore
>to testify voluntarily for the defence, especially if
>it would incriminate the witnesses themselves!
>
>Recommendations for Policy Review
>
>It is my personal view that the following are some
>areas of criminal procedure which need review to
>ensure fairness in the system:
>
>· Setting a maximum time limit beyond which an
>arrested person must be given access to counsel in the
>course of police investigations;
>
>· Oral confessions to police should not be admissible;
>
>· Further facilitating remand inmates to assist their
>lawyers in preparing their defences e.g. making phone
>calls to his lawyer, family members and witnesses;
>
>· If the presumptions against the accused in laws such
>as the Misuse of Drugs Act are retained, the standard
>of proof required from the accused be lowered e.g. to
>one of casting a reasonable doubt.
>
>Conclusion
>
>Having also been a police officer, I strongly believe
>that law enforcement authorities must be given
>sufficient support to be operationally effective in
>responding to crime. Nevertheless, as our nation
>matures, we should strive for a system which balances
>competing interests in a way which does not unduly
>compromise the national interest. Sometimes,
>administrative inconvenience will be necessary.
>
>In this regard, the law and order debate must move
>beyond the rhetorical level. We may not like foreign
>agencies criticizing us; at the same time, we had
>better be sure we have a system where there are
>sufficient safeguards against wrongful convictions,
>especially if the outcome is an execution.
>
>
>
>
>
>=====
>THE OPTICAL
>Singapore
>News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheOptical
>Web: http://sg.geocities.com/theoptical
>E-mail: theoptical@yahoo.com.sg
>
>Disclaimer: The Optical provides Singapore political news as well as
>other types of news which we believe will have an impact on
>Singapore either directly or indirectly. The Optical is not
>responsible for the content of broadcasted articles.
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Log on to Messenger with your mobile phone!
>http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>To unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to
>"TheOptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com" from the same e-mail
>account you are subscribed to. Thank you.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LUCY DAVIS
Editor: Forum On Contemporary Art & Society [focas]
150 R East Coast Road
Singapore 428852
Tel 6344 6372
hp 9276 0796
focas, Forum on Contemporary Art & Society, is a not-for-profit
dialogue and publishing initiative that engages issues of
contemporary art, politics and social change--primarily but not
exclusively--in Singapore and Southeast Asia. focas is dedicated to
interdisciplinary, critical exchange among scholars, activists and
practitioners.
Subscription Queries: www.nus.edu.sg/npu Email supbooks@nus.edu.sg
Editorial Queries: focas@pacific.net.sg
DISSENT IS DEMOCRACY
Singapore has always been put in the spotlight whenever death penalties are mentioned. So, countries which have the Death Penalty are considered barbaric? It's easy to take a stand and give a multitude of reasons to support it, but do they even question their them? Democracy doesn't mean people take things into their own hands, it means they have a say in how the country is run. Telling others to think your way isn't exactly democracy. Abolish the death penalty they say. Who are these "they" people? Are they the mother of the boy who lost his life to teenage violence? A father who lost his daughter to a rapist-murderer? A wife lost and hopeless with 3 kids to bring up when her husband failed to return after going out for some drinks? A husband who felt he could have protected his wife from the robber who stabbed her and left her to bleed to death? I think not. The families of those convicted would probably want my head, but really, those murderers had a choice, their victims didn't. I hope Singapore does not relent. Perhaps what they could do is do their best to give out the maximum punishment possible while avoiding the death sentence in the "underground" sense. But it HAS to be present as a deterrent.
|
