Malaysia – Delay in Coming Into Force Law That Abolishes Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking results in 10 unnessarily sentenced to death

Another 3 sentenced to death since MADPET’s last statement –

Lorry attendant to hang for drug trafficking two years ago- Malay Mail Online, 9/2/2018
2 friends to hang for trafficking drugs. – The Malaysian Insight, 8/2/2018

 

MADPET – Malaysian Gopi Kumar is 6th victims of Minister’s Delay bringing into force law that abolishes mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking

Media Statement –25/1/2018

Malaysian Gopi Kumar is 6th victims of Minister’s Delay bringing into force law that abolishes mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) notes that despite the fact that the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 receiving royal assent on 27/12/2017, that effectively abolishes the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, the failure of the Minister to do the needful to bring the law into force has resulted in Malaysian judges still having no choice but to sentence convicted drug traffickers to death.

‘…”Since there is only one sentence provided for under Section 39B of the Act, the court hereby sentences all the accused to death,” he [Judge Datuk Ghazali Cha] said….’(The Sun Daily,22/1/2018). Until the new Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 comes into force, Judges continues to have no discretion but to sentence those convicted to death.

The most recent victim was Malaysian lorry driver S. Gopi Kumar, 33, who was sentenced to death(The Sun Daily, 24/1/2018). Earlier, on 17/1/2018, it was reported that 5 others, Malaysian A. Sargunan, 42, and four Indian nationals(Sumesh Sudhakaran, Alex Aby Jacob Alexander, Renjith Raveendran and Sajith Sadanandan ) were convicted and sentenced to death by the Shah Alam High Court on Wednesday (Jan 17) for drug trafficking under Section 39B (1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952(Star, 17/1/2018). As not all cases get reported by the media, there may be many others that have been sentenced to death, who may not have been if not for this Ministerial delay.

A perusal of the Malaysian official e-Federal Gazette website on 25/1/2018, shows that the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, that received royal assent on 27/12/2017, has still not come into force. In comparison, other laws that received royal assent on the same day like the Income Tax(Amendment) Act 2017, came into force on 30/12/2017. Even some laws that received royal assent later on 29/12/2018, like the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Act 2018 has already come into force since 11/1/2018.

When the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 comes into force, it will finally abolish mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking that have existed since 1983. Judges, will thereafter, have the discretion to impose a sentence for drug trafficking other than the death penalty, being life imprisonment with whipping of not less than 15 strokes, for the offence of drug trafficking.

Section 3(2) of Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 states, ‘ (2) Any proceedings against any person who has been charged, whether or not trial has commenced or has been completed, and has not been convicted under section 39b of the principal Act by a competent Court before the appointed date, shall on the appointed date be dealt with by the competent Court and be continued under the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act.’

This means that any person even already on trial for drug trafficking(section 39B), so long as they have yet to be convicted, can still enjoy the benefits of Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017. But, until the Minister do the needful, to ensure this law comes into force, judges will continue to have no discretion but to impose the mandatory death penalty on those convicted before the new law applies.

The new law, sadly, do not provide any remedy to those already convicted and/or for the 800 or more currently on death row by reason of having been convicted for drug trafficking.

Hence, as of today, Malaysian Gopi Kumar and possibly 5 or more that have already been convicted by the High Court before the new law come into force, are victims of a great injustice and may be hanged to death.

As it stands now, under even the new law, after conviction and being sentenced to death by the High Court, the Appellate Courts also will not have the capacity to change the death sentence to imprisonment, unless they choose to acquit them of drug trafficking, or possibly elect to convict for for a lesser offence that does not carry the mandatory death penalty.

In light of the adequacies of the new upcoming drug law, Malaysia must really table another new law that will result in the commuting of sentence of all those currently on death row by reason of being convicted of the offence of drug trafficking, and even other offences that carries the mandatory death penalty. This will be just for 2 Malaysians and 4 foreigners sentenced in 2018.

This new law could be tabled in the up-coming Parliamentary session this March 2018. This is the most reasonable approach, considering that there are more than 800 on death row, and judicial review of the sentence of so many may really be a difficult or near impossible task.

It must also be reminded, that Malaysia was looking at abolishing the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty. While the new Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 will do away with the mandatory death penalty for just one offence – drug trafficking, mandatory death penalty still exist for murder and so many other offences, some of which are offences that do not result in any grievous injury and/or death to victims.

As such, Malaysia need to speedily table new laws, which will at the very least abolish the mandatory death penalty – returning discretion to judges to mete out appropriate just sentences based on the facts and circumstances of each and every case.

In the meantime, while Malaysia works towards abolition, there must justly be a moratorium on executions.

MADPET reiterates its call on the Minister to do the needful to ensure that Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 comes into force immediately without any further delay;

MADPET also calls for all trials of persons charged under section 39B(drug trafficking) be stayed, or where trial is almost over, that courts do not proceed to convict until after Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 comes into force. This will prevent any further injustice on any other person, as had embarrassingly happened to Gopi Kumar and 5 or more, who have in 2018 sentenced to death just because of the delay of the law that abolishes mandatory death penalty coming into force;

MADPET reiterates the call for Malaysia to speedily abolish all other remaining mandatory death penalty offences, other than drug trafficking, and returning sentencing discretion to judges; and

MADPET also reiterated the call for a moratorium on all executions, pending the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Note:-

The Official E-Federal Gazette Website

http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/eng_main/main_akta.php?jenis_akta=Pindaan

Refer also the earlier MADPET Statement related to this issue dated 19/1/2018. – Minister’s Delay Resulted in Judge Having No Choice but to Sentence A. Sargunan and 4 others to Death

Lorry driver to hang for trafficking over 45kg of drugs

Posted on 24 January 2018 – 11:23pm
Last updated on 25 January 2018 – 10:57am

 

Picture for representational purpose only. — AFP

KUALA LUMPUR: A lorry driver was sent to the gallows by the High Court here today after being found guilty of two counts of trafficking over 45 kg of drugs, two years ago.

Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohamad Shariff Abu Samah meted out the sentence against S. Gopi Kumar, 33, after finding that the prosecution had succeeded in raising reasonable doubt at the end of the defence’s case.

Mohamad Shariff said the court found that the accused had control, possession and knowledge of the drugs found in his Proton Perdana car and at his rented house, which he moved into in 2015.

“I do not believe the excuses given by the accused that he did not know about the drugs found in the car and at the house on grounds that they (car and house) were accessible to the public,” he said.

Gopi Kumar committed the offence in his car at Jalan 10/18A, Taman Mastiara, Batu 5, Jalan Ipoh, Sentul here at 12.45am on June 22, 2016, and at his home on Jalan 15/18A in the same area at 1.45am on the same date.

For that, he was charged under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which carries a mandatory death penalty upon conviction.

The court also sentenced the man to four years’ jail and five strokes of the cane for another charge of being in possession of 16.2 gm of methamphetamine in the same house at the same time and date.

He was ordered to serve the jail sentence from the date of his arrest on June 22, 2016.

A total of 11 prosecution witnesses and one defence witness – the accused himself, were called to testify in the trial which began on June 14, 2017.

DPP Ahmad Nazneed Zulkifli prosecuted, while Gopi Kumar was represented by counsel New Sin Yew. — Bernama – The Sun Daily, 24/1/2018

Malaysian, four Indian nationals to hang for drug trafficking

Posted on 22 January 2018 – 05:21pm
Last updated on 22 January 2018 – 05:35pm

 

Picture for representational purpose only. — AFP

SHAH ALAM: A local man and four Indian nationals were sent to the gallows by the High Court here on Jan 17 after being found guilty on two counts of trafficking 5.8kg of drugs at a house which doubled as a drug processing laboratory five years ago.

Judge Datuk Ghazali Cha handed down the sentence to A. Sargunan, 42, and four Indian nationals, namely Sumesh Sudhakaran, 30, Alex Aby Jacob Alexander, 37, Renjith Raveendran, 28, and Sajith Sadanandan, 29, after finding that the defence had failed to raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution’s case.

A total of 13 prosecution witnesses and nine defence witnesses were called to testify in the trial which began on March 1, 2016.

All the men were convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine weighing 4.3kg and ketamine weighing 1.5kg at the house in Jalan Sungai Lalang, Semenyih, at around 9am on July 26, 2013.

They were charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which carries a mandatory death penalty upon conviction.

In his judgment, judge Ghazali said after hearing the argument from both sides, he found that there was an undisputed fact in the case, namely all the accused were at the scene when arrested.

In addition, he said another undisputed fact was that the premises was indeed used for processing drugs as the methamphetamine was found exposed on the table and the ketamine, under the staircase.

“Based on the evidence, the court also found that all DNA profiles taken at the scene had been linked to all the accused, such as towels, gloves and toothbrushes. which have been proven by the chemist.

“Apart from that, it also cannot be disputed that the premises was always locked and the doors shut tightly with all the accused working only at midnight and early mornings.

“Although the accused said that they were at the premises for cleaning work and had other work shifts, it was supported by other evidence,” he said.

On Sargunan’s defence that he worked as a taxi driver and happened to be at the scene, the judge found his testimony to be a mere fabrication as the man’s DNA profile was found on towels and shirts found at the premises.

He also said that the evidence of all the four Indian nationals were unreliable as it contradicted their previous recorded statements.

“It is impossible that they do not know the house is a drug processing lab. They all had access to the items in the premises including the drugs.

“Since there is only one sentence provided for under Section 39B of the Act, the court hereby sentences all the accused to death,” he said.

The prosecution was conducted by deputy public prosecutor Deepa Nair Thevaharan while Sargunan was represented by lawyers Datuk N. Sivananthan and Low Huey Theng.

The four Indian nationals were represented by counsel Jayarubbiny Jayaraj. — Bernama – The Sun Daily, 22/1/2018

The Malaysian E-Federal Gazette Website as seen today

Thu , 25 January 2018

Amending Act

Showing page 1 of 12

No. Publication Date Act No. Title Date of Royal Assent Date of Commencement Download
1 10-01-2018 A1563 ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018 29-12-2017 NOT YET IN FORCE
2 10-01-2018 A1562 TOURISM INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018 29-12-2017 NOT YET IN FORCE
3 10-01-2018 A1561 MALAYSIAN MARITIME ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018 29-12-2017 11-1-2018
4 10-01-2018 A1560 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION OF MALAYSIA (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018 29-12-2017 11-1-2018
5 10-01-2018 A1559 MALAYSIAN AVIATION COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018 29-12-2017 NOT YET IN FORCE
6 29-12-2017 A1558 DANGEROUS DRUG (AMENDMENT) ACT 2017 27-12-2017 NOT YET IN FORCE
7 29-12-2017 A1557 SUPPLY ACT 2018 27-12-2017 30-12-2017
8 29-12-2017 A1556 INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT 2017 27-12-2017 30-12-2017
9 29-12-2017 A1555 LABUAN BUSINESS ACTIVITY TAX (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ACT 2017 27-12-2017 30-12-2017
10 30-11-2017 A1554 PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2017 10-11-2017 NOT YET IN FORCE

Indonesia: Proposed law that keeps death penalty as ‘alternative sentence’, 10 year before execution with possibility of commutation

Compromise reached on death penalty

  • The Jakarta Post

Capital punishment has been designated an “alternative sentence” in the Criminal Code revision bill currently awaiting passage in the House of Representatives, in a compromise to appease both public opinion and human rights groups.

Under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration, 18 death row inmates, all of whom were convicted of drug-related crimes, were executed.

Fifteen of the 18 executed were foreigners, prompting international outcry and sparking diplomatic tensions between Indonesia and important allies such as Australia and the European Union.

However, despite condemnation from both foreign and domestic human rights groups, capital punishment remains highly popular in Indonesia. According to a 2015 Indo Barometer survey, 84.9 percent of Indonesians approved of sentencing drug dealers to death, while a 2016 Kompas survey showed that 89.3 percent approved of the death sentence for terrorists.

Nasdem lawmaker Taufiqulhadi acknowledged the death penalty had been a matter of ongoing debate among the lawmakers in the bill’s working committee, but said making it an alternative punishment was a “way out.”

Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly had previously called the move “a win-win solution.”

Article 89 of the bill states: “The death penalty will be imposed as an alternative and as a last resort to protect society.”

The bill goes on to say convicts that receive the death penalty will be given a 10-year probation period, after which their sentence may be commuted to a life sentence or to a 20-year prison sentence at the discretion of the law and human rights minister.

In the current legal system, a death sentence can only be changed through the Supreme Court (MA) or through presidential clemency.

Activists acknowledged the move as a step forward, but remained adamant in their conviction that the death penalty was both inhumane and ineffective.

“It’s true that this is progress,” said Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (Elsam) researcher Adzkar Ahsinin. “And it is probably the most realistic step that we can hope for.”

Community Legal Aid Foundation director Ricky Gunawan echoed his sentiment. “In an ideal situation, of course we hope for total abolition,” he said. “But in a country that only two years ago conducted executions on such a massive scale, this is a small step that should be appreciated.”

Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) legal expert Erasmus Napitupulu said that adding a waiting period between conviction and execution was better than the current system, but said the bill did not go far enough.

“There are still many crimes that are eligible for the death penalty that do not meet the criteria set out in the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR],” he said.

The ICCPR states that the death penalty should be restricted to only the “most serious crimes,” which have been defined as “intentional crimes with lethal consequences.”

The bill, in contrast, allows capital punishment for treason, corruption and drug-related crimes.

Erasmus also questioned the government’s and the House’s rationale for insisting on keeping the death penalty. “The government keeps saying it provides a deterrent effect. But it has never shown any evidence that the deterrent effect actually exists. It is a myth that is continually repeated.”

Adzkar agreed, saying: “We have put forward several arguments against the death penalty, but the House insists on keeping it in, often citing religious arguments.”

Erasmus said it was difficult to refute these arguments; capital punishment is allowed in the Quran, and some lawmakers saw the abolition of the death penalty as a refutation of Islamic teachings.

Ricky acknowledged the improbability of abolishing capital punishment in the current climate. “Politically, in Indonesia at this time, it does not seem possible to abolish the death penalty entirely,” he said. “It would be risky and would invite a lot of criticism, and national leadership has not made human rights a priority.”

He hoped the House would be able to clarify the criteria for sentence commutation and possibly move the decision-making power away from the executive branch. (kmt)

Malaysia – No Public Prosecutor’s OK – no judges discretion to impose sentence other than death

Malaysia have been talking for some time about the abolition of the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty. Now, a Bill has been tabled with regard to drug trafficking which now carries the mandatory death penalty. The Bill, which was supposed to return discretion in sentencing yo judges – now gives the judges a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment(with at least 15 strokes of the whip). However, judges will not get this discretion unless the Public Prosecutor gives a written certification of assistance…

Public prosecutor granted ‘too much power’ over life and death, says human rights group

Bede Hong
A HUMAN rights group is critical of an amendment to the law governing the death penalty, saying it gives too much power to the public prosecutor over the judge in determining who deserved to be sentenced to death.

Yesterday, the bill for the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 was passed in Parliament, amending Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which pertains to the death penalty. The new law allows the judge to exercise discretion in meting out life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, which was previously mandatory for those convicted of drug trafficking. 

However, a clause states that the judge may impose a sentence other than the death penalty, only if and when the “public prosecutor certifies in writing to the court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.”

“It is wrong to give the public prosecutor the power to decide who dies and who may live,” Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) coordinator Charles Hector said in a statement today. 

“Remember, that he is also responsible for prosecution in a criminal trial, and the power to the public prosecutor to give or not give the written certification is most dangerous. It may also undermine the right to a fair trial.”

According to the proposed amending act, if the public prosecutor does not provide the certification, judges will have no choice but to impose the death penalty.  

Hector said the power of sentencing should rest with the judge alone. 

“The existence of appeals to higher courts helps ensure that there be no errors.”

Before sentencing, the judge usually hears and considers the submissions of the prosecution and the convicted person to impose an appropriate sentence. 

“Thus, the question of whether there was assistance or not could be included as one of the listed matters that should be considered by the judge before he decides and pronounces sentence.” 

“Some may have no information or very little information, or maybe that information and/or assistance will not help disrupt drug trafficking activities. As, such this really should be for the judge to decide and maybe should be a point to be considered before sentencing.”

In a statement today also condemning the law amendment,  Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said there was little guarantee that the law enforcement agencies and public prosecutor would not abuse such “unfettered and arbitrary power”.
“It is basic that the act of prosecution is an executive function of the state and the office of the public prosecutor shall be strictly separated from judicial functions. Therefore it would be a serious miscarriage of justice if the prosecutor could also decide the mode of punishment, and all the so, the punishment of death,” he said.
By compelling judges to impose a life or death sentence based on the public prosecutor’s certification is an “unnecessary fetter” on their discretion and interferes with judicial independence and justice, Paulsen said.
As of March, there are almost 800 prisoners on death row for drug trafficking offences under Section 39(B), according to Prison Department statistics.

Madpet has called for all death sentences to be commuted to imprisonment. It further calls on the government to impose a moratorium on pending executions and speed up efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty. – November 24, 2017.- Malaysian Insight, 24/11/2017

Media Statement – 24/11/2017

JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO NOT IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ONLY IF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIVES CERTIFICATION IS WRONG

Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017 Meant To Abolish Mandatory Death Penalty And Return Sentencing Discretion To Judges Has Too Many Flaws

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) welcomes the fact that the Bill to amend Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which has the mandatory death penalty, to now give judges discretion in sentencing, that will allow the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty has finally been tabled in Dewan Rakyat(House of Representatives). The said Bill, the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017, which has taken a long time, was finally tabled in Parliament on 23/11/2017 for the first reading.

SENTENCING DISCRETION TO JUDGES ONLY WHEN THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ALLOWS IT

MADPET is disappointed that discretion when it comes to sentencing those convicted for the offence drug trafficking (Section 39B) is not going to be given to judges in all cases. Judges will only get the discretion to impose a sentence other than the death penalty, only if and when the ‘Public Prosecutor certifies in writing to the Court, that in his determination, the person convicted has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia.’(Section 2(b) of the Amending Act)

 

Rightly, it must be Judges and the courts that consider and decide whether one has ‘assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia’.

Before sentencing, judges will usually hear and consider submissions of both the prosecution and the convicted person, and then impose an appropriate sentence. Thus, the question, of whether there was assistance or not could be included as one of the listed matters that should be considered by the Judge before he decides and pronounce the sentence. Some may have no information or very little information, or maybe that information and/or assistance will not help disrupt drug trafficking activities. As, such this really should be for the judge to decide, and maybe should be a point to be considered before sentencing. There may be also other relevant considerations of safety of oneself and/or family as many of these drug kingpins may threaten to cause harm, and Malaysia may not yet be ready to provide the requisite protection to the accused family and loved ones.

It is wrong to give the Public Prosecutor the power to decide who dies and who may live. Remember, that he is also responsible for prosecution in a criminal trial, and the power to the Public Prosecutor to give or not give the written certification is most dangerous. It may also undermine the right to a fair trial.

Now, according to the proposed amending Act, if the Public Prosecutor does not provide this ‘certification’, judges would have no choice but to impose the death penalty. This mandatory requirement for such a ‘certification’ by the Public Prosecutor must be deleted.

NO REVIEW OF DISCRETION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO PROVIDE CERTIFICATION

Further, it is stated in the proposed amendments that, ‘The determination of whether or not any person has assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities shall be at the sole discretion of the Public Prosecutor and no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor in relation to any such determination done by him in good faith, in such capacity’.

Well, that suggests that no one may be able to question or challenge the correctness of the Public Prosecutor’s decision – not even the courts by way of Judicial Review. This invites the possibility of miscarriage of justice, because if there is no required ‘certification’ by the Public Prosecutor, then the said convict will be sentenced to death.

Judicial Review is an essential ‘check and balance’ especially in a Democracy. One should be able to move the court to review even the decisions of the Public Prosecutor. Further, as it is Public Prosecutor, who decides whether to prosecute or not, this issuance or issuance of this ‘certification’ maybe for the wrong reasons, possibly even to ensure that the prosecution wins the case.

The power and discretion when it comes to sentencing must always rest with Judges alone. The existence of appeals to higher courts, helps ensure that there be no errors.

800 OR MORE ALREADY CONVICTED ON DEATH ROW WILL STILL BE EXECUTED?

In March, Minister Azalina said that according to Prison Department statistics, there are almost 800 prisoners on death row for drug trafficking offences under Section 39(B) (Star, 24/3/2017). These would all be persons already convicted.

The new proposed amendments, however, will not help any of these persons, whose trial is over and they have been convicted and sentenced.

The proposed amendment, in Section 3(2) of the proposed Amending Act, states very clearly that new amendments, when it comes into force, will only be used for persons who ‘…has not been convicted under section 39B…’. This means that all 800 or more on death row for drug trafficking will still be executed, unless they are pardoned by the King and/or rulers.

As such, MADPET urges that the sentence of all 800 or more persons currently convicted and on death row be immediately commuted to imprisonment.

MANDATORY SENTENCES CONTINUE TO EXIST

Even with the amendment, there still will be mandatory sentences – Death(if the Public Prosecutor Does Not Certify), and when there is certification, then judges can impose either Death or Imprisonment for Life(plus whipping of not less than 15 strokes). There is no discretion given to judges to impose a lower prison term, but judges seem to have the discretion to order whipping of more than 15 strokes.

With regard persons being tried under Section 39B Drug Trafficking, we know that many of them may have had the drugs for various different reason, knowingly or unknowingly, and some maybe out of desperation because of poverty.

We know that section 37(da) Dangerous Drugs Act states that “…any person who is found in possession of-(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;(ii)… otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act or any other written law, shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be trafficking in the said drug.” This and other similar legal presumptions shift the burden of proof to the accused person, and it is most difficult for an accused person, more so if he/she is poor, to prove that the drugs found did not belong to him/her.

Should a ‘fool’ who made one mistake be sentenced to death or life in prison. A mandatory life sentence is also grossly unjust. Judges should be given real discretion even with regard to the length of imprisonment, and as such a mandatory life sentence also needs to be reviewed, and judges should have the discretion to impose lower sentence. There should be lower prison sentences for first time offenders, and higher for repeat offenders. We should be emphasizing rehabilitation rather than a ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ policy.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY OFFENCES?

Malaysia have been studying the abolition of the death penalty, and to date we are only seeing action with regard the drug trafficking. There are so many other offences that provide for mandatory death penalty including crimes that do not result death and/or grievous hurt to victims.

Malaysia needs to speed up at least the abolition of the mandatory death penalty for all offences, and returning sentencing discretion to judges.

MADPET calls

  1. That discretion when it comes to sentencing should be with judges. The proposed pre-condition before a judge can exercise judicial discretion in sentencing, being the written certification by the Public Prosecutor that the convicted has ‘assisted an enforcement agency in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Malaysia’ should be deleted. Such conditions are unacceptable;
  1. That the death sentence of the 800 or over persons on death row for drug trafficking(section 39B) be forthwith commuted to imprisonment;
  1. That Malaysia speed up its efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty for all offences;
  1. That Malaysia impose a moratorium on executions pending abolition of the death penalty.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)