Maldives Goverment will enforce death penalty, declares President Yameen

President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom has declared that the Progressive Party of Maldives-led (PPM) coalition government will implement the death penalty despite international pressure.

Speaking at a campaign event for PPM MP Ahmed Mahloof in Male’ last night, President Yameen said his administration’s decision to enforce the death penalty was a “historic day” in the Maldives’ democracy.

“Enforcing the death penalty is not something I will do because I want to. This is a very difficult thing. This is not an easy thing to do for any president or [public] servant. But our society cannot bear the loss of a life as well as the opportunity for further loss of life as a result of not respecting [the value of a human life],” he said.

“For that reason, no matter how much I don’t want to do it or how difficult it is, I have to do this on behalf of the rights of the people as they have placed that trust in me.”

President Yameen revealed that the government had formulated regulations implementing capital punishment on Thursday, based on the advice of the cabinet.

The government decided to enforce the regulations to ensure the safety and security of the community, he said, adding that the public wished to see action taken to stop the “slaughter of innocent citizens.”

Moreover, a majority of the Maldivian people were in favour of introducing the death penalty despite opposition from international partners, Yameen contended.

He stressed that a convict would only be put to death in accordance with Islamic Shariah following due process through the courts.

At the final stage, he explained, the Supreme Court would decide whether capital punishment was warranted as qisas (retaliation).

Under the new regulations specifying procedures for enforcing the death penalty, President Yameen said that both the victim’s and the convict’s family would be consulted after the Supreme Court decision to see whether the former demanded the death penalty and not blood money as retaliation.

Following an order issued by Home Minister Umar Naseer in January to the Maldives Correctional Services for implementation of the death penalty through lethal injection, Amnesty International called upon the government to halt any plans to end the current moratorium on the death penalty.

The international human rights organisation described the possible reintroduction of capital punishment as a “retrograde step and a serious setback for human rights in the country”.

Meanwhile, President Yameen – on a state visit to Sri Lanka at the time of Naseer’s announcement – subsequently promised “broad discussions” on the issue in his cabinet.

Death sentences have traditionally been commuted to life sentences by presidential decree since the execution of Hakim Didi in 1954 for the crime of practising black magic.

The Maldives currently has 20 prisoners sentenced to death by the Criminal Court.

Source: Minivan News, March 14, 2014

South Dakota lawmakers reject bill to repeal death penalty

A South Dakota legislative panel has decided the state should keep the death penalty.

After hearing from relatives of 2 murder victims, the House State Affairs Committee voted 7-6 to reject a measure that would have repealed the death penalty.

The measure would have banned the death penalty in future criminal cases, but it sought to leave in place the death sentences of 3 convicted murderers currently on South Dakota's death row. Opponents say the bill's language might have allowed those 3 convicts to avoid being executed.

Supporters of the death penalty argued it is an appropriate penalty for the most vile crimes and deters others from committing murder.

Opponents of the death penalty contend it does not deter others from committing horrible crimes, save money or improve public safety.

Source: Associated Press, Feb. 22, 2014

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee Suspends Death Penalty

Gov. Jay Inslee said Tuesday he was suspending the use of the death penalty in Washington state, announcing a move that he hopes will enable officials to "join a growing national conversation about capital punishment."

The Democrat said he came to the decision after months of review, meetings with family members of victims, prosecutors and law enforcement.

"There have been too many doubts raised about capital punishment, there are too many flaws in this system today," Inslee said at a news conference. "There is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system."

Inslee said that the use of the death penalty is inconsistent and unequal. The governor's staff briefed lawmakers about the move on Monday night and Tuesday morning.

Inslee's moratorium, which will be in place for as long as he is governor, means that if a death penalty case comes to his desk, he will issue a reprieve, which isn't a pardon and doesn't commute the sentences of those condemned to death.

"During my term, we will not be executing people," said Inslee, who was elected in 2012. "Nobody is getting out of prison, period."

Last year, Maryland abolished the death penalty, the 18th state to do so and the sixth in the last six years.

Nine men await execution at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. The state Supreme Court just last month rejected a petition for release from death row inmate Jonathan Lee Gentry, sentenced for the murder of a 12-year-old girl in 1988. Gentry could be the first execution in the state since September 2010, when Cal Coburn Brown died by lethal injection for the 1991 murder of a Seattle-area woman. A federal stay had recently been lifted in Gentry's case, and a remaining state stay on his execution was expected to be lifted this month.

The decision by the governor comes following a recent decision by the state Department of Corrections, which is in the process of changing its execution protocol to allow witnesses to executions to see the entire process, including the insertion of intravenous catheters during a lethal injection.

The new witness protocol, currently a draft that is in its final stages of approval, includes the use of television monitors to show the inmate entering the death chamber and being strapped down, as well as the insertion of the IVs, which had both previously been shielded from public view.

Through public disclosure requests, The Associated Press had sought information about any potential changes to the execution protocols. State corrections officials spoke with the AP about the new procedures late last month.

The change is in response to a 2012 federal appeals court ruling that said all parts of an execution must be fully open to public witnesses. That ruling was sparked by a case brought by The AP and other news organizations who challenged Idaho's policy to shield the insertion of IV catheters from public view, in spite of a 2002 ruling from the same court that said every aspect of an execution should be open to witnesses.

Source: AP, Feb. 11, 2014

Washington Governor Inslee’s remarks announcing a capital punishment moratorium

Feb. 11, 2014

Good morning.

I’m here today to talk to you about an important criminal justice issue.

WA Governor Inslee

Over the course of the past year, my staff and I have been carefully reviewing the status of capital punishment in Washington State.

We’ve spoken to people in favor and strongly opposed to this complex and emotional issue, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors, former directors of the Department of Corrections, and the family members of the homicide victims.

We thoroughly studied the cases that condemned nine men to death. I recently visited the state penitentiary in Walla Walla and I spoke to the men and women who work there. I saw death row and toured the execution chamber, where lethal injections and hangings take place.

Following this review, and in accordance with state law, I have decided to impose a moratorium on executions while I’m Governor of the state of Washington.

Equal justice under the law is the state’s primary responsibility. And in death penalty cases, I’m not convinced equal justice is being served.

The use of the death penalty in this state is unequally applied, sometimes dependent on the budget of the county where the crime occurred.

Let me acknowledge that there are many good protections built into Washington State’s death penalty law.

But there have been too many doubts raised about capital punishment. There are too many flaws in the system. And when the ultimate decision is death there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system.

Let me say clearly that this policy decision is not about the nine men currently on death row in Walla Walla.

I don’t question their guilt or the gravity of their crimes. They get no mercy from me.

This action today does not commute their sentences or issue any pardons to any offender.

But I do not believe their horrific offenses override the problems that exist in our capital punishment system.

And that’s why I am imposing a moratorium on executions. If a death penalty case comes to my desk for action, I will issue a reprieve.

What this means is that those on death row will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. Nobody is getting out of prison -- period.

I have previously supported capital punishment. And I don’t question the hard work and judgment of the county prosecutors who bring these cases or the judges who rule on them.

But my review of the law in Washington State and my responsibilities as Governor have led me to reevaluate that position.

I recognize that many people will disagree with this decision. I respect everyone's beliefs on this and have no right to question or judge them.

With my action today I expect Washington State will join a growing national conversation about capital punishment. I welcome that and I’m confident that our citizens will engage in this very important debate.

I’d like to tell Washingtonians about what lead me to this decision.

First, the practical reality is that those convicted of capital offenses are, in fact, rarely executed. Since 1981, the year our current capital laws were put in place, 32 defendants have been sentenced to die. Of those, 19, or 60%, had their sentences overturned. One man was set free and 18 had their sentences converted to life in prison.

When the majority of death penalty sentences lead to reversal, the entire system itself must be called into question.

Second, the costs associated with prosecuting a capital case far outweigh the price of locking someone up for life without the possibility of parole.

Counties spend hundreds of thousands of dollars – and often many millions -- simply to get a case to trial.

And after trial, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on appellate costs for decades.

Studies have shown that a death penalty case from start to finish is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for the rest of their lives – even if they live to be 100 years of age.

Third, death sentences are neither swift nor certain. Seven of the nine men on death row committed their crimes more than 15 years ago, including one from 26 years ago. While they sit on death row and pursue appeal after appeal, the families of their victims must constantly revisit their grief at the additional court proceedings.

Fourth, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. That’s according to work done by the National Academy of Sciences, among other groups.

And finally, our death penalty is not always applied to the most heinous offenders.

That is a system that falls short of equal justice under the law and makes it difficult for the State to justify the use of the death penalty.

In 2006, state Supreme Court Justice Charles Johnson wrote that in our state, “the death penalty is like lightening, randomly striking some defendants and not others.”

I believe that’s too much uncertainty.

Therefore, for these reasons, pursuant to RCW 10.01.120, I will use the authority given to the Office of the Governor to halt any death warrant issued in my term.

I will take your questions.

http://governor.wa.gov/news/speeches/20140211_death_penalty_moratorium.pdf

Bahamas: Minnis Releases Draft Bill On Death Sentences

Opposition leader Dr Hubert Minnis has released a draft Bill which seeks to amend the constitution to cut the London-based Privy Council out of the appeal process in cases where a death sentence has been imposed.

After declaring in his New Years message on Tuesday that immediate steps must be taken to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the country's laws, including capital punishment, Dr Minnis unveiled a Bill for the Constitutional (Amendment) (Capital Offences) Act, 2014.

In the case of murder convictions, the Bill asserts, if the trial judge feels the nature and circumstances "are of such depravity, inhumanity, gravity or severity as to merit the imposition of a sentence of death", and the Court of Appeal agrees, the sentence cannot be appealed "to any other court anywhere else in the world".

The Bill adds that any delay in executing a death sentence caused by the convict's appeal will no longer be grounds for challenging the validity of that sentence.

This aims to overturn the 5 year limit imposed by the Privy Council.

It adds: "The holding of any person who is in a correctional facility or otherwise lawfully detained, prior to, during or after trial, and pending execution of a sentence of death imposed on that person, in conditions which immediately before the coming into operation of this Act were prescribed in the Correctional Facilities Act or the Prisons Act, as then in force; or were otherwise practiced in the Bahamas, shall not be a ground of appeal or of vitiation of such sentence of death."

During his New Years speech, Dr Minnis admitted the bulk of modern research asserts there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to the would-be murderer.

"That may be so, but what is also clear in our Bahamas is that today there is a hardened criminal element who have nothing but contempt for law, order, or human suffering, and for whom there is no respect for human life even the lives of innocent by-standers, and children," he said.

"At the very least, there should be the certainty of sure punishment, and punishment which is appropriate to the crimes committed. Our policy is not based upon any concept of deterrence; it is based on the right of national self-defence.

"The wave of gang and drug-related murders is a matter which threatens not only the wellbeing of every citizen and every community, it also threatens the fundamental integrity of the state. It threatens the way of life of every law abiding Bahamian. It threatens national security. Violent gun crimes and rampant murders must be tackled on that basis," the FNM leader said.

Dr Minnis said his Bill was designed to address several procedural weaknesses which have caused the Privy Council to overturn capital sentences for convicted murderers in the past; and to strengthen and to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of the trial process in serious gun-related and murder cases.

He said the stipulation that a death sentence appeal can only be made to the Bahamas Court of Appeal, and nowhere else, is a reflection of the FNM's considered view that "in so serious a question as the sentence for a convicted murderer, a determination that a crime is 'the worst of the worst' (or any similar legal formulation) should only be made by judges who reside in the Bahamas, and who consequentially have to live every day in the society which they help to shape by their rulings.

"All other appeals such as an appeal against conviction, or an appeal on constitutional grounds will still be able to be made to the Privy Council," Dr Minnis said.

"Under the Bill, the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Minister of National Security, will prescribe time limits for the lodging and conclusion of all appeals against conviction, or constitutional appeals.

"If the same are not concluded within such time limits, the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy will be able to advise that the law should be brought into execution," he said.

The Bill would also remove the Constitutional right to trial by jury either at the request of the prosecution or at the request of the accused where there is a charge of having committed murder, manslaughter, or crimes involving the use of firearms to inflict harm or death, and particularly in instances where there is a likelihood of jury or witness tampering or intimidation.

"In such instances the case will be heard by a panel of 2 Supreme Court Judges along with a qualified non-judicial Attorney called an Assessor," Dr Minnis said.

He added: "As this Bill necessarily seeks to affect fundamental rights and freedoms which are presently enshrined and protected in the constitution, it will require the holding of a National Constitutional Referendum.

"My fellow Bahamians, it will be up to each and every one of you to decide whether these proposals become law by way of an amendment of our constitution."

Source: Tribune 242, January 9, 2014

Sioux Falls lawmaker changes mind on death penalty, wants to see it repealed

PIERRE — A state lawmaker who previously supported the death penalty says he will ask the 2014 South Dakota Legislature to repeal capital punishment.

Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls, who also is a pastor, said he changed his mind about the death penalty after reviewing the Bible. He said he also believes it does not deter people from committing horrible crimes, save money or improve public safety.

Hickey said his bill would apply only to future cases.

The lawmaker also said he believes life in a cramped prison cell can be a more severe punishment than executing murderers by quietly putting them to sleep with drugs.

“There is an existence worse than death,” Hickey said. “If you really want to take away someone’s life, then take away their life but not their breath.”

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said he will oppose Hickey’s bill because he believes the death penalty is appropriate for the most vile crimes and is used sparingly in South Dakota. He said it deters crime and particularly protects prison staff, other inmates and medical personnel from convicted murderers housed in prison.

“There is a place for capital punishment. It’s a very limited place,” Jackley said. “Our prosecutors, our juries and our judges have used it very sparingly, only for the most egregious and appropriate cases.”

Hickey said he doesn’t want to reopen old cases, so his bill would not change the death sentences faced by the three convicts currently on death row. They are: Charles Russell Rhines, convicted of the 1992 slaying of a man during the burglary of a Rapid City doughnut shop; Briley Piper, convicted of the 2000 killing of a man near Spearfish; and Rodney Berget, convicted of the 2011 killing of a prison guard during a botched escape attempt.

“The other thing that changed my mind on this is I saw a list of the nations that kill people,” Hickey said. “We’re on this list of about 10 of the worst nations on Earth. It’s the wrong group to be in,” Hickey said.

Source: AP, December 10, 2013

South Sudan: Amid a Shroud of Secrecy, the Government of South Sudan Quietly Executes Four People

The Government of the Republic of South Sudan should publicly disclose information about its use of the death penalty. South Sudan's prison service carried out at least four executions this November. Two men convicted of murder were hanged in Juba on 12 November. Two others were killed in Wau on 18 November.

The SSLS has been unable to obtain specific information about these executions. Members of the Judiciary declined to provide the names of those executed. The facts of their alleged crimes are not known. Whether or not they had access to legal counsel is not known.

"The Government should disclose the identities of those executed and make public the details of their trials and convictions," said Priscilla Nyagoah, advocacy officer with the South Sudan Law Society (SSLS). "This information is necessary to contribute to an informed and transparent national debate."

These recent hangings are the latest in a disturbing series of judicial executions in South Sudan. The SSLS believes that at least fourteen individuals have now been hanged since South Sudan gained independence in July 2011. There are approximately 200 people on death row. The Government, however, does not publicly disclose information about death sentences or judicial executions. The actual number of individuals executed is likely higher.

The recent executions come less than a year after the Government of South Sudan, along with 110 other nations, voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution that calls on countries that use capital punishment to place a moratorium on judicial executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The resolution also calls on countries to respect international standards regarding fair trial rights and to make available relevant information about their use of the death penalty to contribute to informed and transparent debates. Since signing the resolution, however, senior government officials have said that their vote was a mistake and that the Government of South Sudan would continue to administer judicial executions.

"The government should notify the public of any impending execution and ensure that the relevant court records are accessible," said Nyagoah. "Citizens have a right to understand the circumstances surrounding our government's use of the death penalty."

South Sudan's justice system is struggling to establish itself after decades of civil war. Police and prosecutorial services are not available in much of the country and where they are available they do not have the human and financial resources to conduct proper investigations and prosecutions. Cases have been documented in which confessions are obtained through torture. Since the vast majority of people sentenced to death do not have access to legal counsel, accused persons are often unable to contest forced confessions or mount an adequate defense.

"To execute people who have not had access to a lawyer is a clear violation of international human rights law," Nyagoah said. "Until the Government is able to ensure that every person accused of a crime punishable by death is provided with legal counsel, it should cease judicial executions."

Proponents of the death penalty in South Sudan justify the punishment as a deterrent to violent crime. They argue that South Sudanese have been made violent and unruly as a consequence of protracted civil war and that convicted criminals must be dealt with harshly to send a signal to others who would commit similar crimes. There is, however, no evidence that judicial executions serve any deterrent function. Indeed, more than seven years after the end of the war, crime rates in South Sudan are as high as they have ever been.

"Government-sanctioned killings in this context merely perpetuate the notion that life is cheap in South Sudan," Nyagoah said. "If the Government wants to change mindsets and discourage casual attitudes towards the taking of a life, it should lead by example and put in place a moratorium on capital punishment with a view towards abolishing the death penalty."

About the South Sudan Law Society (SSLS)

The South Sudan Law Society (SSLS) is a civil society organization based in Juba. Its mission is to strive for justice in society and respect for human rights and the rule of law in South Sudan. The SSLS manages projects in a number of areas, including legal aid, community paralegal training, human rights awareness-raising, and capacity-building for legal professionals, traditional authorities, and government institutions.

Source: AllAfrica, November 26, 2013

University of Oslo Calls World Universities against Death Penalty

The University of Oslo wants the world’s universities to join a network against the death penalty.

“The voice of the universities must be heard in the fight against the death penalty,” says Rector Ole Petter Ottersen. All the Norwegian universities are now part of the University of Oslo’s network against the death penalty.

Universities against Death Penalty aims to be a global network of universities that use their voice and their symbolic power in the work against capital punishment.

The Rector of the University of Oslo has taken the initiative to form the network along with project manager Lill Scherdin and Professor Mahmood Amiry Moghaddam.

Spearheaded by this group, the UiO is working proactively to enrol other universities in the Nordic countries and the West to the network. They then plan to invite universities from all corners of the world to join. Their influence is needed in the efforts to convince countries that still practise the death penalty that it must be stopped.

“The universities’ moral voice must be heard”

“It’s only in very exceptional cases that universities take a political stance and allow their moral as well as their intellectual voice to be heard, and it’s when issues arise that affect the university’s fundamental values. The fight against the death penalty is one such issue, equivalent to the fight against apartheid and slavery,” the Rector asserts.

Freedom of speech and the academic liberty that is fundamental for universities is also relevant for the fight against the death penalty.

“The death penalty is at variance with the values incorporated in human rights, where the right to life is the most basic of all. Capital punishment is also in opposition to the scientific mindset where we reject absolute certainty. It’s never possible to be a hundred per cent sure – and not in questions of guilt either. The Innocence Project in the USA shows that there are many innocent people on death row. There’s also a large amount of research on capital punishment to indicate that this form of penalty doesn’t have an effect that counter-balances the irrevocable intervention it actually represents.”

Ottersen and Scherdin report that several universities outside Norway have already indicated that they are positive to joining the network.

“Everybody’s voice must be heard”

Lill Scherdin has studied the death penalty for years as a Senior Researcher in the Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law at the University of Oslo. She hopes the network will be able to persuade a “critical mass” of people in countries where capital punishment is still practised to oppose this form of penalty, and that their voices will be so loud and clear that the political leaders of the countries in question will no longer be able to ignore them.

“Research shows that there’s an ambivalent attitude to the death penalty in countries that practise it. Pressure against these countries at the political level doesn’t often reach the people but is warded off by the political leaders. Countries that practise capital punishment have become very good at responding to other countries or to communications from human rights organizations.”

“If we manage to establish a critical mass of people, not consisting mainly of politicians but of individuals from all types of professions, then pressure and influence will also come through channels other than the political.”

Ms Scherdin hopes that the network can thus motivate universities in countries that practise capital punishment to persuade their citizens to take a stance against this form of penalty.

“A critical mass of people who want the death penalty issue to be openly discussed needn’t constitute a majority of the population, but there must be a sufficient number for the opinion they are supporting to be regarded as a legitimate viewpoint represented within various layers and groups of society. The politicians will then be forced to take their views into consideration. And that’s exactly why it’s important for us to support the political fight against the death penalty with initiatives from the universities. The fact that universities publicize their view and are willing to take up discussions on the death penalty contributes to creating such a critical mass,” she maintains.

No support for the death penalty in research

The fight against the death penalty is one of the main priorities of Norway’s human rights policy. Capital punishment is contrary to the concept of the right to life, the dignity of the individual and the principle of humane treatment. Research has never been able to document that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime.

On the contrary, extensive research shows that capital punishment has a number of unintended negative effects and costs – for society, for the families involved and for the legal system.

“The practice has few traceable positive effects, and the global community now has an ever-growing understanding of the negative impact the death penalty can have for both individuals and society,” the Rector tells us.

On the right track

“We’ve seen great progress in the work against the death penalty in recent years, and more than 70 per cent of the world’s countries now abstain from using this method of punishment. The number of countries that have abolished capital punishment has increased from 21 in 1970 to 106 in March 2013. In fact only 21 countries carried out executions in 2012. But the forces against abolishing the death penalty are strong, and very many people are executed on a global basis – in horrifying ways.”

Thirty-two states in the USA still practise the death penalty. There are considerable differences among countries with a majority of Muslims in their population: some perform a high number of executions – for example Iran and Saudi Arabia – while others have introduced a moratorium or have abolished capital punishment completely. Prominent Asian countries such as China, India and Japan continue to execute people, and 90 per cent of all executions in the world are carried out in Asia.

Only seven countries have executed ten or more citizens each year in the past decade: China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, the Yemen and the USA.

“It’s our duty to spread information”

Professor and Rector Ole Petter Ottersen emphasizes the universities’ responsibility to spread information in the work against the death penalty. He points out that universities have a duty and a responsibility to communicate what research has to say about the effects of capital punishment.

“It’s obvious that the universities that join the network should inform politicians what research shows about the death penalty and how inappropriate it is as a method of punishment. But we must also set standards based on the fundamental values of the universities and must help to establish norms in the community on major issues. If such norms are assimilated into society, then society can be changed. Universities have played an important role here before. We have a responsibility for making sure that knowledge reaches those who need it and for ensuring that our knowledge is taken into account at the political level. This network is of key importance in this respect.”

The universities that join the network assume no duties other than that of lending their voice and their symbolic power to the work against the death penalty. However, member universities will receive information on the various ways of working against capital punishment in a university context, as well as information on the contributions that other universities, faculties and departments are making to these efforts.

Source: The Nordic Page, November 11, 2013

Why Support For The Death Penalty In America Is Plunging

A Gallup poll found this week that support for the death penalty in America is the lowest it's been in 40 years and has dropped sharply since its peak at 80% in 1994.

These days, roughly 60% of Americans support the death penalty for convicted killers, the lowest level of support since 1972 when 57% of people were in favor.

We spoke to death penalty expert Douglas Berman, who attributed the drop in support to three big factors: high-profile exonerations of death row inmates; the disappearance of "tough on crime" attitudes popular in the '80s and '90s; and the successful repeal of the death penalty in a number of U.S. states.

"Really over the last decade there has been a growing awareness of mistakes in the context of death row prosecutions and exonerations that tend to be very high-profile," said Berman, a law professor at The Ohio State University and founder of the Sentencing and Law Policy blog.

A total of 142 death row prisoners in America have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. These exonerees sometimes become outspoken opponents of the death penalty and can be very compelling in swaying public opinion.

The public is also less enamored of "tough on crime" policies than it used to, partly because America has gotten much safer in the past 20 years. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential candidate in 1988, was a vocal opponent of the death penalty and famously got hammered for being "soft on crime."

These days, Berman said, "Crime is much less salient of a political issue."

There's also little evidence that the death penalty does anything to deter crime anyway. Currently 18 states have banned capital punishment. "There's not a lot of evidence that crime spikes up dramatically" when a state stops executing people, Berman said. (In fact, the region with the most executions - the South - is also the most violent part of the country.)

Anti-death penalty advocates in states that have banned the death penalty have also successfully highlighted problems with capial punishment, such as high costs and the difficulty in administering it fairly. These arguments have been particularly successful at swaying independent voters, Berman noted.

It may be surprising then that liberal California rejected an attempt to repeal the death penalty last year. The loss for death penalty opponents came even as people in the state grew concerned about the costs of capital punishment, the Associated Press noted.

"It remains the case that, even in a blue state," Berman said, "there is still this general support for the death penalty at least on the books as kind of a symbolism of being tough on the worst offenders."

Source: Business Insider, October 30, 2013

European Union Financing Efforts to End Death Penalty in U.S.; Giving millions of dollars in grants to American nonprofits

The European Union is financing efforts to abolish the death penalty in the United States through millions of dollars in grants to American nonprofits, EU records show.

The EU's European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) has disbursed grants worth millions of dollars to a host of U.S.-based groups for campaigns aimed at ending or eroding support for capital punishment.

Experts say the expenditures raise concerns about the influence of foreign governments on American policy.

The EU is flatly opposed to capital punishment. "Its abolition is a key objective for the union's human rights policy," the union's website states.

EIDHR doles out millions of euros each year to groups that oppose the death penalty.

Those grants are "aimed at promoting the restrictive use of, the establishment of a moratorium on, and the abolition of the death penalty."

EIDHR gave 495,000 euros to Equal Justice USA in fiscal year 2012 for a project called "Breaking Barriers: Engaging New Voices to Abolish the Death Penalty in the United States."

EJUSA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, meaning its work must focus on education, rather than advocacy. But a EU description of the Breaking Barriers program says one of its purposes is to "advocate for abolition."

Shari Silberstein, EJUSA's executive director, said the group acts within all applicable legal constraints, including the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

FARA requires groups to file disclosures with the Justice Department if it conducts advocacy work on behalf of a foreign government.

"We determined with our attorneys that it did not apply to us," Silberstein explained in an email. "EJUSA does engage in some lobbying (as allowed within our legal limits), but no EU funds are used for those activities."

The roughly $680,000 the group received from the EIDHR made up a large portion of its revenue. According to EJUSA's website, its fiscal year 2012 budget was "just over $1 million."

Silberstein said her group received the EIDHR grant for "public education and outreach activities" involving "the creation and dissemination of public education materials, media, conference attendance, and networking."

Luke Coffey, a Margaret Thatcher fellow at the Heritage Foundation, balked at the EU's campaign, saying decisions about the death penalty are made at the state - not federal or international - level.

"The EU is a very undemocratic organization which is suffering from very low popularity right now," Coffey said. "They have bigger problems to worry about."

The EU has given out more than 3.5 million euros ($4.8 million) since 2009 to 7 groups for efforts to combat the death penalty in the United States.

Other recipient organizations include the American Bar Association's Fund for Justice and Education and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Both are also 501(c)(3) groups.

While support for capital punishment has declined in recent years, a Gallup poll released this week shows that a large majority of Americans continue to support the practice.

Source: Washington Free Beacon, October 30, 2013

USA: FBI Releases Report Including State Murder Rates for 2012

The U.S. Department of Justice recently released its annual FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2012.

The national murder rate remained approximately the same in 2012 as in 2011.

The Northeast, the region with the fewest executions, had the lowest murder rate of any region, and its murder rate decreased 3.4% from the previous year.

The South, which carries out the most executions of any region, again had the highest murder rate in 2012.

The murder rate in the West remained about the same, while the rate in the Midwest increased slightly.

6 of the 9 states with the lowest murder rates are states without the death penalty.

The average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.7, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 3.7 (not weighted by population).

Source: Death Penalty Information Center, October 28, 2013

Missouri: Larry Flynt Opposes Death Penalty for His Shooter

Larry Flynt, founder and publisher of the famous porn magazine Hustler, was shot outside a Georgia courthouse on March 6, 1978.

As a result of the attempt on his life, Flynt was paralyzed from the waist down and has been using a gold wheelchair ever since.

While in police custody in 1980, Joseph Paul Franklin confessed to shooting Flynt and civil rights activist Vernon Jordan, but was never tried or convicted for either shooting.

However, Franklin was eventually convicted of eight racially motivated murders in Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and Missouri between 1977 and 1980, and confessed to or was implicated in 13 additional racial murders, notes the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Franklin was sentenced to death in Missouri in 1997 and is scheduled to be executed lethal injection on Nov. 20, reports KSL.com.

He is reportedly a white supremacist who was angered by the Flynt publishing pictures in Hustler of an interracial couple having sex.

Flynt is now speaking out to oppose Franklin's execution.

In an op-ed he recently wrote for the Hollywood Reporter, Flynt states in part:

In all the years since the shooting, I have never come face-to-face with Franklin. I would love an hour in a room with him and a pair of wire-cutters and pliers, so I could inflict the same damage on him that he inflicted on me. But, I do not want to kill him, nor do I want to see him die.

...Supporters of capital punishment argue that it is a deterrent which prevents potential murderers from committing future crimes, but research has failed to provide a shred of valid scientific proof to that effect whatsoever.

...As far as the severity of punishment is concerned, to me, a life spent in a 3-by-6-foot cell is far harsher than the quick release of a lethal injection. And costs to the taxpayer? Execution has been proven to be far more expensive for the state than a conviction of life without parole, due to the long and complex judicial process required for capital cases.

...As I see it, the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I firmly believe that a government that forbids killing among its citizens should not be in the business of killing people itself.

Source: Opposing Views, October 17, 2013

Death and the city: the death penalty in Singapore

Singapore Changi Prison

East of the island between a commercial airport and a military air base lies a government facility that shares the same name. It was in its former life, a Japanese Prisoner Of War (POW) camp. Now it is where drug mules and murderers are hanged. In the small city-state of Singapore, Changi Prison is synonymous with the death penalty.

October 10th was the World Day against the Death Penalty. Singapore is 1 of 40 countries that still practices corporal and capital punishment. It had until recently the highest number of executions per inhabitant in the world. It is estimated that since 1990, more than 420 death row inmates have been executed. Most are sentenced on drug related offences, although firearm offences and murder also warrants the death penalty. In the summer of 2011, the Singaporean government undertook a general review of its death penalty laws. During the review all death penalty cases were deferred.

In 2012, Minister Teo Chee Hean outlined the government's review. He reaffirmed Singapore's commitment to the death penalty as a legitimate tool of deterrence against the crimes to which it has traditionally applied. However, where certain strict conditions are met, some drug related offences and homicide cases, whilst still carry the death penalty, sentencing will be at the discretion of the courts.

Citing society's changing norms and expectations, more sentencing power should be vested in the courts. Drug trafficking will not carry the mandatory death penalty if the trafficker has only played the role of courier, and has "not [...] been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs." Secondly, the courier must, as well as be only a courier, either cooperate completely with the Central Narcotics Bureau, or have a mental disability.

Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs "propose[s] to change the law such that when these conditions are met, the courts will have the discretion either to sentence the trafficker to death, or alternatively to pass a sentence of life imprisonment with caning." In December 2012, the proposed changes to the law were passed through the Singaporean Parliament.

During the review, as mentioned, all death penalty cases were deferred. In January 2013, the Singapore Prison Service released its annual statistical data. It provides the number of capital executions since 2010. According to its data, no executions took place in 2010, 4 took place in 2011, and none again in 2012. In 2013, there have been no reported executions in the Republic of Singapore. The Attorney-General's Chamber said at the time of the government review there were "at least 32 people on death row."

A recent case that attracted the attention of the Singaporean media was that of Abdul Haleem and Muhummad Ridzuan. In 2010, the two drug couriers were caught with 72.5 grams of heroin, almost 5 times over the amount that carries the mandatory death sentence (15g). Both were given the death penalty. However, in April 2013, Abdul Haleem was given the 1st certification from the Attorney-General's Chambers which notified his substantial assistance in disrupting drug trafficking cases. He was instead sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 lashes of the cane. His accomplice's death penalty charge was upheld.

Recent cases from 2013 include Li Yongxian, who killed a co-worker, and Rebecca Loh, who dropped her son from their HDB flat, killing him. They both face the death penalty if convicted. Although declared fit for court, Rebecca Loh is thought to suffer from mental illnesses, and bloggers lament the lack of support she received from the community and government.

One case that has gained international recognition is that of Yong Vui Kong. Amnesty International has long asked for his withdrawal from death row. From a poor family in Sabah, Malaysia, the vulnerable Kong fell into the wrong hands when he moved to Kuala Lumpur in search of riches. He acted several times as a mule, carrying heroin into Singapore, allegedly not knowing the penalty for doing so. He was caught in 2007 aged just 19. He was promptly sentenced to death. Although many appeals were rejected, Yong Vui Kong was granted stays of execution. It is 4 years since his original execution date. This is in large part due to the work of Singaporean human rights lawyer Madasamy Ravi. With the government review, he is eligible to apply change his death penalty to life imprisonment.

It has been claimed there are more people on death row than in the corrections administration. The Singapore Prison Service is subdivided into seven divisions, one of which is the Psychological and Corrections Rehabilitation Division. It is headed by Timothy Leo and Karam Singh. It does not have its own website, nor does it provide data as to the precise number under of inmates it is treating.

According to the Singapore Prison Service's annual statistics, the convicted penal population in 2012, was 9,901. The emplacement number for Community Based Programmes was 1,290, whilst the number of inmates trained in vocational programmes was 5,800. This is considerably more than the alleged 32 people on death row. The recidivism rate has declined consistently over the years, with 23.6% of 2010 release cohort having re-offended.

This, according to Terrence Goh who is Director of the Rehabilitation and Reintegration Division, "is an encouragement to the various agencies and community partners involved in giving second chances to ex-offenders." Initiatives include enhanced supervision for repeat drug offenders and partnerships with civil society organisations such as The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE). SCORE supplied almost 15,000 training places to inmates in 2011. 88.6% of offenders secured jobs following their release.

Furthermore, with regard to drug abuse, preventative measures are being taken by the Central Narcotics Bureau. Since its inception in 1994, the number of new abusers has fallen whilst drug abuser arrests has tumbled from over 6000 to 2472 in 2012.

However, the past year has seen a leap of 730 more drug offenders being convicted. One could link this to the repealing of death penalty laws in Singapore. In Singapore, there appears to be a gradual inching towards a less deterrence - based attitude in crime prevention. Nevertheless, the supposed 32 on death row are still 32 too many according to organisations such as Amnesty International and the European Union.

Many South-east Asian countries, symptomatic from the hangover from their colonial past, use the death penalty as a deterrence against crimes they deem dangerous and detrimental to the fragile fabrics of their societies. However, there are signs that these countries are heeding the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states "every human being has the inherent right to life".

Despite Vietnam recently putting 4 drug dealers on death row, they are unable to execute them because of an EU ban on the exportation of the chemicals needed for the lethal injection (which they use now instead of hanging due to pressure from the EU). The Philippines, Cambodia and Timor Leste have abolished the death penalty, whilst Malaysia and Indonesia, alongside Singapore, are making moves to repeal the death penalty. Outside pressure seemingly is having an effect.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt there is a still long way to go before the death penalty is abolished in Singapore. Changi Prison will continue to be the scene of many convict's last meal, last farewell, and last breath.

Source: The World Outline, October 15, 2013

New cases spur debate on capital punishment in China

Beijing has made some strides in reforming how death penalty gets meted out, but experts say more transparency is needed in system.

Early on the morning of September 25, representatives from a Shenyang court in Liaoning province went to the home of Zhang Jing with news her husband, Xia Junfeng, would be executed in a few hours. She should go to the detention centre to say her good-byes, they said.

Xia, who sold roasted sausages and other snacks on the street after losing his factory job, was convicted of "intentional homicide" in the stabbing death of 2 urban management officers in 2009 after they beat him. He insists he acted in self-defence.

Despite a long review of his case by the Supreme People's Court, the death sentence was upheld. "As long as there is still one person back at my home, tell them not to give up appealing for me," Xia said in his last words to his wife, she later told the South China Morning Post.

Xia wanted to have a final photo taken with his family, but officials refused. "How could you be so cruel?" Zhang said on her microblog.

Gu Kailai , 53-year-old daughter of a Communist Party elder, was also convicted of "intentional homicide". She poured rat poison and cyanide mixed in water down the throat of drunken British businessman Neil Heywood in a room at the Lucky Holiday Hotel on November 14, 2011, in Chongqing , where Gu's husband, Bo Xilai served as party boss.

She received a suspended death sentence last year, and could be released from jail after serving nine years, on the grounds of medical parole, according to the Dui Hua Foundation, a US-based group that pushes for human rights and legal reforms on the mainland.

Today is "World Day Against the Death Penalty", an initiative launched in 2002 by an alliance of more than 145 non-governmental groups aiming to get rid of capital punishment. While the mainland has taken significant steps in recent years to limit the number of people its courts sentence to death, observers agree a ban is a long way off. Judicial officials often say the concept of "a life for a life" remains ingrained in society, and the nation is at a stage of development where the death penalty is necessary as a deterrent.

There are key differences between the cases of Xia and Gu, her mental health was taken into account by the court for instance, but they help to illustrate what lawyers and activists say is an unfair application of capital punishment on the mainland.

Mao Lixin, a Beijing-based criminal lawyer, said capital punishment was linked to social inequality. Defendants lower on the economic ladder often lacked the resources to hire the legal assistance they deserved, Mao said. "Xia's case is a classic example [of this] when compared to that of Gu," he said.

Rights lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan agreed. "In cases like Xia's, a suspended death penalty is more than enough, but he was nevertheless given a harsh sentence," Liu said. "It seems the sentence is most often imposed for violent crimes, especially in cases where civilians have clashed with the government or where law enforcement officers were attacked."

When it comes to corrupt officials, the courts have often taken a different approach. In July, former railway minister Liu Zhijun was found guilty of taking bribes and other gifts worth 64.6 million yuan (HK$81.6 million) in addition to helping get 11 people promoted in exchange for favours.

Liu received a suspended death sentence, which could be commuted to life imprisonment with good behaviour. His term could be subsequently reduced to as little as 13 years if he is not cited for further lapses.

"The death penalty can be imposed on officials who received bribes worth more than 100,000 yuan," Liu said. "However, in recent cases, toppled officials, including Liu who took bribes worth tens of millions of yuan, were not sentenced to death."

The death penalty can be imposed on officials who received bribes worth more than 100,000 yuan. In recent cases, toppled officials, including Liu who took bribes worth tens of millions of yuan, were not sentenced to death

His case contrasts with that of former Hunan tycoon Zeng Chengjie, who was executed by firing squad in July after being found guilty of illegally raising 3.4 billion yuan and defrauding investors.

Currently, 158 countries in the world have abolished or are no longer imposing the death penalty. China puts to death more people than any other country, although Iran and Singapore have higher per capita execution rates.

It is impossible to accurately state how many people are being executed on the mainland every year as the number remains a state secret. The Dui Hua Foundation estimated there were 4,000 executions in 2011 and 3,000 last year, using information provided by Professor William Schabas who is an international criminal law and human rights scholar with honorary professorship at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

10 years ago, the figure was thought to be as high as 12,000.

"It's hard to say whether 3,000 is an underestimate because no one knows the real figures besides the state," Mao said. "The international community has been pushing China to disclose statistics over its use of the death penalty," he said, noting countries such as Vietnam and North Korea also kept death penalty figures secret.

In recent years, mainland authorities have rolled out measures aimed at reducing the use of capital punishment, most notably passing a law in 2006 that required the Supreme People's Court to approve each death sentence. The government has also shortened the long list of crimes punishable by death, from 68 to 55. But, even if a ban is not likely soon, there are additional reforms authorities can enact.

"Introducing transparency into the process of capital punishment is the first step in fostering a national discussion on whether to abolish the death penalty," Mao said.

Many legal professionals have called for the review procedure to be made more open, with more detailed rules. At present, there is no time frame within which a review must take place. Family members are often only notified of the decision when they are called in to meet the defendant one last time.

The review is also done in an internal meeting, instead of an open hearing. And while the judges should meet a defence lawyer if asked, that does not always happen.

One of the strongest arguments against capital punishment is the possibility that an innocent person would be wrongly put to death. Last month, the Higher People's Court in Hebei rejected an appeal by Wang Shujin based on his confession to the rape and murder of a woman, whose body was found in a cornfield in Shijiazhuang in 1994. Nie Shubin , another Hebei man, was convicted of the murder and executed in 1995, at age 20.

Disappointed at the ruling, 40 lawyers published an open letter "strongly condemning" the Hebei court for upholding Wang's death sentence and rejecting his confession, blocking a possible review of Nie's case.

"The consequences of a wrongful conviction in which a person is put to death cannot be reversed. This is a factor that will likely sway society against the death penalty," Mao said.

He urged the government to step up education and establish alternatives to the death sentence, such as harsher life imprisonment.

Source: South China Morning Post, October 10, 2013

USA: Torture on Death Row

It is inhumane, fallible, expensive, and an ineffective crime deterrent. It is also no secret that the death penalty in the United States is carried out in a racially discriminatory manner. African Americans and Latinos make up over half the people on death row while comprising about a quarter of the U.S. population. Looking at the race of the victim, in the last 30 years, only 20 white on black murders have resulted in execution, compared with 261 black on white. You probably can't recall the last time the State of Louisiana executed a white person for a crime against an African American. That's because it last happened in 1752.

What remains largely unseen is how, beneath a misleading veneer of due process and legal protocol, thousands of death row inmates are often subject to conditions that constitute torture, sometimes for decades on end, while waiting to be executed or exonerated. These conditions, as much as the death penalty itself, constitute violations of established international human rights law as well as the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.

In 1972, the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, declaring that its application was so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional. Although many believed that this marked the end of capital punishment in the U.S., state legislatures responded by rewriting their death penalty laws in order to convince the Court that the death penalty could be made impartial and compatible with a basic concept of human dignity. In 1976, the Supreme Court ended the de facto moratorium on U.S. executions and, since then, has tried to delineate a "modern" death penalty by calling for a better appellate process and outlawing the penalty for certain offenses and categories of people, including juveniles and people with mental disabilities. Given that the standard for mental disability is non-existent, that line has been crossed many times.

But no constitutional window dressing can legitimize state-sponsored murder or humanize the system that administers it. More than three decades after the Supreme Court reversed its stance on capital punishment, conditions on death rows across the country remain nothing short of barbaric. The Court's demand for a better appellate process has mostly extended the time death row prisoners spend in these conditions -- thereby paradoxically deepening the human rights violations -- and research continues to show that race is the dominant factor in explaining who is sentenced to death in this country.

In May of this year, I traveled to Louisiana and California to document conditions of confinement on death row together with colleagues at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Florence Bellivier, president of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, there representing the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) on the mission. California has the largest number of people on death row in the country and Louisiana is infamous for the harsh conditions prisoners suffer. Our findings are published here.

In Louisiana's notorious Angola prison, home to all men on death row in the state, those sentenced to death spend their final years locked in their cells alone for 23 hours each day. During summer, death row inmates are kept in their cells even though the heat index regularly exceeds 110 degrees. The prison does not provide them with clean ice or cool showers, but it does provide the public with tours of death row and the lethal injection table.

At night, in an effort to keep cool, the men at Angola sleep on the floor where they are exposed to fire ants. When they "misbehave," they are moved to cells in the hottest tiers. Men have lived up to 28 years on Louisiana's death row, and most spend at least a decade in these dehumanizing conditions waiting for court appeals to go through. That is their due process.

In California, where minorities make up 65 % of death row, the wheels of justice turn so slowly that new death row inmates will spend approximately 20 years on death row, and some over 30. Others will spend decades locked inside their cells in solitary confinement for minor infractions committed years ago, without access to a telephone and without feeling the touch of a family member for the entire length of time in solitary. Their due process while on death row? Wait an average of 3-5 years before a lawyer is even appointed to appeal the sentence, then an additional 8-10 years following the conclusion of their appeal for another lawyer to be assigned to handle a state habeas petition. In the meantime, the stress and anxiety of not knowing when they will be executed or when they will even receive the assistance of a lawyer will cause severe mental anguish for long decades, and will lead some prisoners to commit suicide rather than endure the long waiting process ahead.

And that's a glimpse of what the "modern" death penalty in the U.S. looks like in two of the states that retain it. The Supreme Court tried to sanitize a brutal practice, but it is impossible to legitimize the indefensible. The only morally and legally tenable response to the death penalty is its complete abolition. Yet while we continue to work for that day, we must also work to address the human rights violations that send people, disproportionately people of color, to death row and then torture them there before the final act of killing.

Source: Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Rights, Huffington Post, October 9, 2013

India: 'The death penalty is not the solution'

An Indian court has sentenced 4 men to death for a fatal gang rape last year in New Delhi. But UN Women's representative Rebecca Tavares believes capital punishment is not the right way to deal with these crimes.

The crime took place last December when a 23-year-old female physiotherapy student and her male companion were attacked upon boarding a private bus they thought would take them home after watching a movie at a shopping mall in New Delhi. 6 attackers savagely beat the man and repeatedly raped the woman, inflicting massive internal injuries with an iron rod, according to police reports. The woman died from her injuries 2 weeks later in a Singapore hospital.

Some 9 months later, four of the adult suspects were sentenced to death by hanging. The presiding judge stated that "in these times, when crime against women is on the rise, the courts cannot turn a blind eye toward such gruesome crimes." But in a DW interview, UN Women's representative for India, Rebecca Reichmann Tavares, says that while perpetrators of crimes against women must be brought to justice, there is no evidence that the death penalty has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment.

DW: Indian fast-track court judge Yogesh Khanna said the December gang rape in New Delhi was "an extreme case of brutality" and a "beastly crime" that shocked the collective conscience of society. Despite the nature of the crime, do you think the death sentence is the right kind of punishment in this case?

Rebecca Tavares: No, I don't. The official position of the United Nations is that the death penalty is a human rights violation. There is no evidence that capital punishment has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. While UN Women recognizes the brutality of the crime, we cannot condone that type of punishment for any human.

Tavares says there is no evidence that capital punishment has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment

We believe this ghastly crime deserves the maximum sentence of life imprisonment and that all perpetrators of crimes against women should be brought to justice. But we are also of the opinion that higher conviction rates will serve as a deterrent to those willing to commit acts of violence against women. We therefore call on the government of India to ensure speedy justice to the survivors of the violence and to facilitate the rehabilitation of the perpetrators.

India must reform its judiciary, work with the police to enforce the laws that have been brought forward. The country is a leader in terms of making progressive and positive laws for women, but the problem lies in the enforcement, along with prevailing attitudes and long-standing positions that violate women's human rights.

What signal do you believe the Indian judiciary is sending out with this ruling?

It is sending a very clear message to the public at large that this type of crime cannot be tolerated. In India and across the world there have been very low conviction rates for rape and other forms of violence against women. It's time for that to change. The Indian people have demanded an end to the culture of rape. Since the incident took place in December last year, there has been an uptick in the number of crimes against women being reported. More women and more families are now willing to come forward and report cases these cases.

The ghastly attack has also led to many progressive reforms and changes such as the approval by Parliament of the Criminal Amendment Act 2013, which called for an end to impunity, and recognized a broad range of sexual crimes against women. The law acknowledges that lesser crimes often escalate to graver ones and that deterrence is important.

Based on anonymous interviews with more than 10,000 men in Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea, a UN study found that about 1 in 10 men had raped a woman who was not his partner. When their wife or girlfriend was included, that figure increased to nearly 1/4. What are the reasons behind such a high prevalence of rape?

One of the interesting aspects of the study is the way the questions were phrased. Instead of asking the participants whether they had ever raped a woman, the researchers asked if they had ever had sex with a woman against her will, which resulted in a positive response in many cases.

The men who took part in the survey thought that they had a right to women's sexual services automatically. There seems to be a culture of entitlement. This is why we need to work to change men's attitudes towards women, gender relations and long-standing patriarchal structures. But we also need to focus on other aspects such as education, women's economic empowerment and the justice system.

International media mostly focuses on rapes, dowry deaths and forced marriages when reporting about the situation of women in Asia. But what positive changes have taken place in Asian countries?

More and more governments recognize the importance of women and are taking measures to empower them economically. There are many programs involving housing, land distribution and cash transfer especially designed for women. Furthermore, progressive legislation aimed at incorporating prevention, education and a comprehensive approach to addressing violence and discrimination against women is currently being passed in many countries.

Dr. Rebecca Reichmann Tavares is the UN Women's representative for India, Maldives, Bhutan and Sri Lanka.

The interview was conducted by Gabriel Dominguez.

Source: Deutsche Welle, September 14, 2013

India: Britain, Amnesty slam death penalty

Amnesty International and Britain have strongly opposed the death penalty awarded to Nirbhaya's rapists. While Amnesty International condemned the decision to hang the 4 convicted of the crime, saying death penalty will not end violence against women, Britain asked India to refrain from carrying out death sentences and called on the government to establish a moratorium in order to permanently abolish capital punishment.

Soon after the fast track court ordered the hanging on Friday, Britain's foreign office told TOI, "We note that 4 men have been sentenced to death in India following prosecution for rape and murder. While the UK fully respects India's right to prosecute this awful crime, the UK is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle in India as elsewhere".

The foreign office added "We urge the Indian government to refrain from carrying out any further executions. We also call on the government of India to formally establish a moratorium with a view to abolition of the death penalty."

In a statement released in London, Amnesty said far-reaching procedural and institutional reform, and not the death penalty, is needed to tackle the endemic problem of violence against women in India.

"The rape and murder of the young woman in Delhi last year was a horrific crime and our deepest sympathy goes out to the victim's family. Those responsible must be punished, but the death penalty is never the answer," said Tara Rao, director of Amnesty International India. "Sending these 4 men to the gallows will accomplish nothing except short-term revenge. While the widespread anger over this case is understandable, authorities must avoid using the death penalty as a quick-fix solution."

Amnesty says there is no evidence that the death penalty is a particular deterrent to crime, and its use will not eradicate violence against women in India. The brutal crime on Nirbhaya highlighted "the unacceptable reality millions of women in India are facing", it said. It said violence against women is endemic - more than 2,20,000 cases of violent crimes against women were reported in 2011 according to official statistics, with the actual number likely to be much higher.

Speaking to TOI, Amnesty's death penalty expert Chiara Sangiorgio admitted that "calls for death penalty, particularly when made in these highly emotional moments, undoubtedly express people's desire to live in a safer society, free from fear of crime" but "there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than any other punishments."

Source: Associated Press, September, 14, 2013