Tag: crime

The Death Penalty Debate: Kamala Harris and Executions


Five executed in one week. Kamala Harris silent

September 2024

After spending one and a half hours unsuccessfully trying to find a vein, sticking the needle into various parts of his body including arms, neck and feet, they suspended the prisoner upside down for 20 minutes in the hope of finding one but failed to execute him and returned him to his cell. Two years later they used nitrogen hypoxia after which he shook for 2 minutes and after six minutes of gulping, he died. Thus ended the life of Allan Eugene Miller on Thursday last week (26th September).

This is not a description of an execution from some barely civilised country but in USA in the state of Alabama. It was one of 5 executions last week the others being Emmanuel Littlejohn; Travis Mullis; Marcel Williams and Freddie Owens.

The case of Marcel Williams, 55, is particularly troubling since he was almost certainly innocent. Despite copious blood at the scene, none matched his DNA. Key evidence was either lost or destroyed. Witnesses had an incentive to give false evidence to receive a $10,000 reward.

Republican prosecutors seemed to have become more aggressive in pushing for the ultimate penalty. This may be linked to current politics and ‘Make America Great Again‘ rhetoric from Donald Trump. During his time as president, he altered the composition of the Supreme Court which now has an ultra-right super-majority.

Anyone who has followed Clive Stafford-Smith or read his books will know the process is far from perfect in many states in the Union. Poor trial procedures, withheld evidence, packed juries and defendants represented by inexperienced lawyers are not at all unusual. Many states have abandoned the death penalty but a number still keep it of which Alabama is one. It is no accident that despite only representing 13% of the population, 34% of black people are on death row.

There are many who believe the penalty is a deterrent. The problem of course is that mistakes cannot be put right. As the Death Penalty Information Center points out, since 1973, 200 former death row prisoners have been found innocent of all charges.

The issue has become a political one. It has been noted that Kamala Harris, the deputy president standing for election to become the president this November, makes no mention of abolition in her speeches or literature. She opposed the penalty in 2019. However, the promise to do so has not survived. This shift partly results from a change of mood following some high profile police murders. Trump is solidly in favour as part of his ‘tough on crime’ policy. There is a lot of discussion in the American press and there are suggestions that such a principled stand was not popular even with fellow Democrats.

Sources: Death Penalty Information Center; Washington Post; The Guardian; NBC; Amnesty International; Mother Jones.

0

Celebration – of sorts


Hakamada Iwao acquitted after 56 years in prison

September 2024

We tend to think of Japan as a modern democracy and a sophisticated society having cast off the problems of its warlike past. It is a G7 nation and enjoyed a post war boom leading to considerable commercial success. But there are elements of the society which have not changed one of which is the legal system.

Japan still has the death penalty a particular cruel feature of which is that prisoners do not know of their execution until a few hours before it takes place.

The news that the Appeal court in Japan has declared Hakamada Iwao as innocent has been a long time in coming – 56 years in fact. Hakamada was convicted of murdering his boss in 1966. He spent a staggering 46 years on death row. Much of it was in solitary. The only problem was that he is almost certainly innocent. Key evidence was fabricated. He was forced to sign a confession after 20 days of intense interrogation and beatings by the police. He was not allowed a lawyer.

Bloodstained clothing – a key element in the prosecution’s case – turned out not to be Hakamada’s blood. It may have been planted. There are many things wrong with the whole process and further details can be found on the background provided by Amnesty. The role of the police was a key part of the miscarriage of justice. This led to probably the longest death sentence ever. Historically, this was a familiar story in the UK with forced confessions after long hours of interrogation. It led to the introduction of PACE which has led to improvements in police practice here.

One of the problems is the attitude of the Japanese public. It is reported that 80% of the Japanese are in support of the penalty. It is unlikely therefore that change will happen quickly.

Although it is encouraging to see Hakamada exonerated from this crime, the case raises several concerns. The use of the death penalty which, had he been executed, would have resulted in the state killing an innocent man. As in all these cases of police coercion, the real killer(s) have never been found or prosecuted. It also reveals a legal system which seems amazingly slow both to act and ultimately acquit. It also seems reluctant to admit mistakes. Finally, his treatment in prison with years spent in solitary confinement are unreasonably cruel. Altogether, this does not reflect well on the Japanese state.

The local group has campaigned for many years and it is gratifying to see some kind of justice at last for this man.

Sources: Amnesty, Guardian, BBC

0

Alabama’s third execution this year


Many troubling aspects to this case. Urgent action with full details available here

July 2024

Keith Gavin is scheduled to be executed in Alabama next week on 18 July 2024. He was convicted in 1999 of a murder committed in 1998 and sentenced to death on a jury vote of 10-2 for the death penalty. In 2020, a federal judge found that his legal representation at the sentencing phase had been constitutionally inadequate, but in 2022 the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. International legal standards require that anyone facing the death penalty be provided effective legal assistance at all stages of the case. This standard was not met. We urge the Governor to commute this death sentence.

There are a number of troubling aspects to this case not least the poor and ill-prepared defence (defense) he received. After the trial, appeal lawyers discovered much mitigation evidence not heard by the jury, including multiple psychological risk factors from Keith Gavin’s childhood and adolescence, including his exposure to violence at home and in the community. He was one of 12 siblings growing up in a dilapidated apartment in Chicago’s notorious public housing projects; his closest siblings all had histories of incarceration and drug dependencies. He was subjected to more paternal beatings than the others because he “accepted responsibilities for things he had not done because he felt he was strong enough to accept the whippings”. Outside the home, the exposure to violence took the form of pervasive gang activity. Seven of the 12 children ultimately joined gangs, and several became victims of gang violence.

The Governor of Alabama said “Although I have no current plans to grant clemency in this case, I retain my authority under the Constitution of the State of Alabama to grant a reprieve or commutation, if necessary, at any time before the execution is carried out,” Ivey said in her letter to Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm. (Source: Montgomery Advertiser)

Full details of this case can be accessed here and we urge those reading this to write to the Governor (model letter available) as soon as you can. The US is the only country in the Americas to retain the death penalty.

1721170800

  days

  hours  minutes  seconds

until

Execution

"Amnesty International" "Human rights" Amnesty Arms arms sales Arms trade Bahrain Belarus Cathedral China conservatives Death penalty death row ECHR Egypt FCO film Gaza Group news HRA Human rights Human Rights Act immigration India Indonesia Iran Israel Japan John Glen MP minutes North Korea Oklahoma Pakistan Palestine refugees Reggie Clemons Salisbury Saudi Saudi Arabia Texas UK urgent action USA vigil Yemen

0

UN Rapporteur ‘seriously concerned’ at crackdown in UK


UN Rapporteur on environment matters expressed ‘alarm’ ‘distress’ and ‘serious concern’ at the crackdown on environmental activists in UK

January 2024

Between 10 – 12 January 2024, David Forst, made his first visit to the United Kingdom since he was elected as UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention in June 2022.

On 23 January he issued a statement in the light of the extremely worrying information he received in the course of meetings regarding the increasingly severe crackdowns on environmental defenders in the United Kingdom, including in relation to the exercise of the right to peaceful protest.

“These developments are a matter of concern for any member of the public in the UK who may wish to take action for the climate or environmental protection. The right to peaceful protest is a basic human right. It is also an essential part of a healthy democracy. Protests, which aim to express dissent and to draw attention to a particular issue, are by their nature disruptive. The fact that they cause disruption or involve civil disobedience do not mean they are not peaceful. As the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, States have a duty to facilitate the right to protest, and private entities and broader society may be expected to accept some level of disruption as a result of the exercise of this right“.

Peaceful protests

During his visit, however, he learned that, in the UK, peaceful protesters are being prosecuted and convicted under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, for the criminal offence of “public nuisance”, which is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. He was also informed that the Public Order Act 2023 is being used to further criminalize peaceful protest. In December 2023, a peaceful climate protester who took part for approximately 30 minutes in a slow march on a public road was sentenced to six months imprisonment under the 2023 law. That case is currently on appeal, but it is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK.

He also expressed alarm to learn that, in some recent cases, presiding judges have forbidden environmental defenders from explaining to the jury their motivation for participating in a given protest or from mentioning climate change at all. It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate.

He also received highly concerning information regarding the harsh bail conditions being imposed on peaceful environmental defenders while awaiting their criminal trial. These have included prohibitions on engaging in any protest, from having contact with others involved in their environmental movement or from going to particular areas. Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm – 7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking. Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to 2 years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. 

Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health and he seriously questioned the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest. In addition to the new criminal offences, he was deeply troubled at the use of civil injunctions to ban protest in certain areas, including on public roadways. Anyone who breaches these injunctions is liable for up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Even persons who have been named on one of these injunctions without first 2 being informed about it – which, to date, has largely been the case – can be held liable for the legal costs incurred to obtain the injunction and face an unlimited fine and imprisonment for breaching it. The fact that a significant number of environmental defenders are currently facing both a criminal trial and civil injunction proceedings for their involvement in a climate protest on a UK public road or motorway, and hence are being punished twice for the same action, is also a matter of grave concern to him.

Media derision

He was also distressed to see how environmental defenders are derided by some of the mainstream UK media and in the political sphere. By deriding environmental defenders, the media and political figures put them at risk of threats, abuse and even physical attacks from unscrupulous persons who rely on the toxic discourse to justify their own aggression. The toxic discourse may also be used by the State as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders. In the course of his visit, he witnessed first hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.

As a final note, during his visit, UK environmental defenders told him that, despite the personal risks they face, they will continue to protest for urgent and effective action to address climate change. For them, the threat of climate change and its devastating impacts are far too serious and significant not to continue raising their voice, even when faced with imprisonment. We are in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Environmental defenders are acting for the benefit of us all. It is therefore imperative that we ensure that they are protected.

A spokesperson for the UK Home Office, the government department that tackles policing and other elements of national security, said that “while decisions on custodial sentences are a matter for the independent judiciary, the Public Order Act brings in new criminal offences and proper penalties for selfish, guerrilla protest tactics.”

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest.”

“The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“

The full report can be accessed here: Aarhus_SR_Env_Defenders_statement_following_visit_to_UK_10-12_Jan_2024.pdf (unece.org)

Sources: CNN; Guardian; UN, Mail on Line. [There does not seem to be a report on this in the Daily Telegraph]. All accessed 25 January 2024

0

Threat to our rights


Government bills represent a threat to our rights to protest and to hold the government to account

We are becoming accustomed to authoritarian regimes restricting the rights of their citizens by a variety of means. These include restrictions on the right of assembly, weakening judicial control and either ignoring or neutering human rights laws. The UK government has introduced three bills which seek to do similar things and this post is to highlight the dangers for everyone in the country.

Our human rights are our personal freedoms. You can’t see or touch them, but they should always have your back. Think of them as your invisible armour. If you don’t find yourself thinking about your rights much, that’s a good sign that they’re there for you and doing what they should be: making you feel safe, accepted and free to enjoy your life with dignity and without fear. But what if someone quietly took your armour away, bit by bit, and you didn’t realise until it was too late? How would you protect yourself?  

That’s what’s happening right now, right under our noses – and the UK government doesn’t want you to know about it. As we speak, they are trying to introduce new laws and make changes to existing ones that will result in less freedom for ordinary people, more power for people in authority, and even greater inequality in our society. These changes will also make it harder for you to stand up for yourself if your human rights are being abused. And on top of that, in many cases it will be society’s most vulnerable people who are the worst hit by the changes. Our freedoms are under attack from all angles: this is a raid on our rights.  

If you’re still not sure what all this means in practice, you’re not alone. That’s exactly what people in power want, as a lack of public understanding makes it easier for them to sneak through changes that will negatively affect people’s lives without them realising (until it’s too late). We’re here to shout about the changes and make sure as many people as possible are aware of them, as we need your help to fight them.  

 
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill   

The right to protest is fundamental to a free and fair society.  In its current form, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for England and Wales, would be an enormous and unprecedented extension of policing powers which would put too much power in the hands of the state. It would give both police and Government ministers the powers to ban, limit or impose any condition on peaceful protests – on the grounds that they might be ‘noisy’ or cause ‘annoyance.’  
 
The Bill not only targets the organisers of any protest, but also anyone who takes part in them on the basis that they “ought to have been aware” of any restrictions, conditions or prohibitions placed on any given event, risking criminalising large numbers of people for activities that otherwise would be perfectly lawful.  

Our rights, enshrined in international and domestic law, can only be infringed in very limited circumstances considered to be both proportionate and necessary.  Measures in this Bill are neither. Police already have wide ranging powers to manage public order and prevent public assemblies from causing serious harm. This Bill sets out to crackdown on explicitly nonviolent dissent.  

This will likely disproportionately impact people who are in a minority and increase the racism and discrimination which is experienced by many.  The thresholds in the Bill that will be applied to any policing action are vague, undefined and open to such wide ranging and discretionary interpretation that they will give rise to even more inconsistent approaches to how protests and demonstrations will be managed in future.  

Communities who already face wide ranging racist and discriminatory over policing will likely be at even greater risk. Already, research by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights shows that 85 % of Black people in the UK are not confident that they would be treated the same as a white person by the police.  

This is worsened by other parts of the Bill, including greater police powers to enhance stop & search and to collect and share information, all of which are likely to entrench institutional racism within the criminal justice system. These structural inequalities need to be dismantled not re-built.  
 
We are concerned by restrictions on the right to roam which would seriously affect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities who could see their entire way of life criminalised. These proposals risk further criminalising homelessness or protesters using nonviolent occupations, peace camps or sit-ins to challenge injustice.  

This Bill covers a huge number of things, many of which have been heavily criticised by different sectors and requires a serious rethink. In many ways, it is so problematic that it would better be that it was dropped. Any welcome provisions in it could be delivered through different legislation. If the Bill proceeds, we are calling, alongside over 250 civil society organisations and 700 legal academics and counting, for the removal of Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill that relate to protest and the right to roam. We are similarly calling for the removal of measures relating to enhanced stop and search powers and data gathering and sharing requirements, which if enacted would likely increase structural racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. At an absolute minimum, the relevant parts of the Bill (Part 2 Chapter 1, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 10 Chapter 1) must be substantially amended. 
 
Disappointingly the Bill has passed through the Commons, but this is not the end. In autumn the Lords will now have the opportunity to amend the Bill, before it returns to the Commons. 

This Bill affects England and Wales directly, but people from Scotland and Northern Ireland will travel to London to protest.  As Amnesty activists we are concerned about restrictions to freedom of expression and rights to assembly wherever they happen in Bogota, Bangalore, Belfast or Bristol. 

The Salisbury group will be writing to our MP, Mr John Glen, to express our concerns about this and other proposed pieces of legislation.

3

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑