This document provides an overview of capital punishment globally and in Malaysia. It discusses how the death penalty has been applied for centuries but many countries have recently abolished it. In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights discourages the death penalty. While most Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore still impose capital punishment, some like Bhutan have abolished it. The document outlines the mandatory and discretionary death penalty offenses in Malaysia and statistics on executions. It also discusses arguments for and against the death penalty in terms of retribution and deterrence.
This document provides an overview of capital punishment globally and in Malaysia. It discusses how the death penalty has been applied for centuries but many countries have recently abolished it. In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights discourages the death penalty. While most Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore still impose capital punishment, some like Bhutan have abolished it. The document outlines the mandatory and discretionary death penalty offenses in Malaysia and statistics on executions. It also discusses arguments for and against the death penalty in terms of retribution and deterrence.
This document provides an overview of capital punishment globally and in Malaysia. It discusses how the death penalty has been applied for centuries but many countries have recently abolished it. In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights discourages the death penalty. While most Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore still impose capital punishment, some like Bhutan have abolished it. The document outlines the mandatory and discretionary death penalty offenses in Malaysia and statistics on executions. It also discusses arguments for and against the death penalty in terms of retribution and deterrence.
TOOL FOR JUSTICE OR A WEAPON AGAINST HUMANITY. by Guru Dhillon*, Dr Noor Mohammad**, Ng Yih Miin*** Introduction The death sentence or capital punishment has been commonly applied for centuries. The death sentence can be dated back to ancient history although no one can pinpoint where such an idea actually originated from. This draconian sentence once haunted society on a global scale and is well rooted in the national law. The death sentence is a punishment applied to a wide variety of offences spanning from the most severe cases to even petty theft. Capital punishment has been carried out through various methods and include, amongst others; the guillotine, [1]
crucifixion, [2] boiling in oil, [3] death by hanging, [4] lethal injection, [5]
electric chair, [6] shooting [7] and stoning to death. [8]
In the last 50 years, however, the global society has started to move away from a pro-execution mindset to a new revolution of abolishing death sentencing. Over the years, more activists and jurists around the world have voiced concerns against this brutal, ruthless and senseless sentencing and method of punishment. The main reason behind the success of abolishing the death sentence is when citizens around the globe become more aware of the importance of their constitutional rights in the country they reside in. Most of these constitutions have provisions such as right to life and other provisions that discourage death sentencing. Such provisions include Art 2 of the European Charter of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as ECHR) implemented since 1950 by the Council of Europe.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 2 Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life. The first paragraph of the article contains an exception in respect of lawful executions, while the second paragraph provides that death resulting from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is no more than absolutely necessary. Protocol 13 of the ECHR suggests abolishment of the death sentence completely. It must be noted that this is a statute binding on countries in the European Union. Similarly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 reads as follows [9] :- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Further, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [10] provides the following provision:- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Thus, there is direction to modern society for the total abolishment of the death sentence. One of the earliest countries to abolish the death sentence was Portugal in 1867. Almost all the countries which are part of the European Union have abolished the death sentence as they abide closely with the ECHR provision under Protocol 6 but for Belarus. Most of these countries have stated vehemently that capital punishment ought only to be invoked during war time. To further illustrate this, Portugal had abolished the death sentence in 1868, however, executions resumed during World War I to punish people for espionage and treason.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 3 On the other hand, capital punishment is still stably rooted in Asian countries. 44% or 24 countries in Asia still impose the death penalty and this includes Malaysia and Singapore. There are only a handful of countries that are known to have abolished this penalty such as Bhutan and Timor Liste [11] Debates about abolishing capital punishment or the death sentence have been continuing and show no signs of slowing down since the turn of the last century. Even in Asia, Amnesty International [12]
is vigorously and relentlessly pleading to countries in Asia to abolish capital punishment as their counterparts in Europe have done. In Malaysia, the death penalty applies to various offences. The statistics are staggering where between 1979 till 2001, 359 people have been executed in Malaysia alone. As the countries around the globe have done away with the death punishment, Malaysia and Singapore cling vehemently to capital punishment. This paper will provide an insight into the effectiveness of the death penalty as compared to the abolishment by comparing the statistics of different countries and their legislations respectively. Table 1 below shows the different mandatory penalty convictions in Malaysia with its relevant provision in the statutes. The method is death by hanging once the accused is found guilty. Table 1: Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia Offence Legal Provision which provides for mandatory death penalty Trafficking in dangerous drugs Discharging a firearm in the commission of a scheduled offence Section 39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Section 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 4 Trafficking in dangerous drugs
Section 39(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
Offences in Security Areas for possession of fire-arms, ammunition and explosives Section 57(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 Offences in Security Areas for possession of fire-arms, ammunition and explosives Accomplices in case of discharge of firearm Section 3A of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971
Offences against the Yang di- Pertuan Agong Murder Section 121A of Penal Code Section 302 of Penal Code Table 2 below states the offences that fall under discretionary death penalty where the decision on death sentencing lies within the discretion of the judge, the judiciary exercising total independence according to the Federal Constitution. Table 2: Discretionary Death Penalty [13]
Offence Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri Section 121 of Penal Code
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 5 Consorting with a person carrying or having possession of arms or explosives Section 58(1) of Internal Security Act 1960 Abduction, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement for ransom (kidnapping) Section 3 of Kidnapping Act 1961
The Dreary Path to the Death Row in Malaysia The decision on discretionary death sentence will normally rely on the different circumstances of the case. One of the most important considerations is the seriousness of the offence. However, the Malaysian court would adhere to the beyond reasonable doubt rule when it comes to the ruling on death sentencing as the liberty and life of the accused is at stake. The prosecution officer will have to prove that the committal of the said crime was beyond reasonable doubt or else the courts will not bring about a conviction. There are insufficient statistics provided by government agencies to the public regarding the number of death sentences in this country. To date, the best representation are the statistics provided by the National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam). The statistics appear to show that since 2001, approximately 159 people are on death row. [14] Another statistic is that provided by the Deputy Home Minister, Zainal Abidin Zin, that 359 death sentences have already been carried out within the period of 31 years from 1970 to October 2001. The findings were that the majority of cases were convictions for drug trafficking offences.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 6 Arguments For - Retribution with the imposition of the death penalty Since time immemorial, the death sentence serves as retribution for the death that was caused. It is a common rooted opinion that the victims family and friends will have extreme hatred towards the convict that they would definitely wish for a death sentence in return for the life taken. Since ancient times there has been the application of the saying, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The theory of retribution has raised controversy over the years. Robert Macy who is the District Attorney of Oklahoma mentioned this: In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. Arguments For - The Correlation between deterrence and the death penalty Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Prof Ernest Van den Haag, who conducted studies on the correlation of the death penalty to deterrence commented that: Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. The authors invite readers to compare the findings by Prof Ernest Van den Haag with real life statistics that were compiled by various government agencies and bodies.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 7 THE EVIDENCE Statistics provided by the Royal Malaysia Police on crime cases related to the death penalty Graph 1 below is provided by the Royal Malaysia Police in their official website. [15] This is the most complete statistics ever to have been revealed by the Malaysian Government to this date in 2011. The graph above confirms the number of incidents from year 2000-2006. This will include homicides, attempted murder, robbery (unarmed and armed). As for gang robbery involving firearms, it reveals that cases reported each year varies from 40 to 100 cases. In contrast, robberies committed by solo criminals involving firearms have decreased gradually and consistently from 722 in year 2000 to 247 in year 2006. In addition, the number of attempted murders doubled from year 2000 to 2005 from 43 cases to 94 cases. Homicide on the other hand fluctuates and has significantly increased from 2004 to 2006. 2006 recorded the highest number of homicides at a staggering figure of 604 cases. It has showed no signs of decreasing over the years even with the enforcement of the death sentence.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 8
Graph 1 Statistics from United States of America- A Comparative perspective during a similar period Graph 2 below portrays the overall national murder rates in States with the death penalty and States without death penalty in the United States of America. It is based on murder rates per 100,000 from the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI Sources). The graph clearly shows that the murder rates in both death penalty States and murder rates in non death penalty States have steadily reduced over 17 years from 1990 and 2007. However, the most important analysis should be that the murder rates in non-death penalty States are very much lower than the murder rates in death penalty States.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 9
Graph 2 Graph 3 below is a survey that was conducted by the New York Times. [16]
It proved conclusively that over the period of 20 years, the homicide rates in States with the death penalty clearly marked 48 to 101 per cent higher as compared to the non-death penalty States.
Graph 3 These graphs and statistics only highlight a glaring fact that the death sentence cannot be considered as an absolute deterrent. The authors at this juncture further raise serious questions to legislators and lawmakers
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 10 on the need to continue with capital punishment as life imprisonment could be opted for as the most serious punishment since this form of a punishment also acts as a deterrence and is as effective a deterrence as the death penalty. Arguments against the Death Penalty - A legal perspective It is of utmost importance to make reference to the Malaysian Federal Constitution in the issue of right to life as the author addresses the death penalty law. Art 5(1) states clearly that: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, save in accordance with the law. The clause covers two areas of concern which is the freedom to live and also the freedom to live without detention. However, this freedom can be curtailed by the intervention of the judiciary, whereby such freedom hinges on the creativity of the judiciary. This is supported by the 3 rd principal of A.V. Diceys rule of law, The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons. Judges should exercise their discretionary power whilst construing any clauses in the law that will curtail the basic rights of the alleged party, but in practice, this is seldom ever done. Hence, the phrase in accordance to law should be also scrutinized as it gives very wide arbitrary powers to the court to decide when it is appropriate to have removed the rights of people even in the most drastic situations that involve the taking of anothers life. When judges are asked why they act so arbitrarily, their response is usually always that they are not in the position to answer to the reasonability and morality of the law
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 11 as they are required to abide by the laws that have been passed by Parliament. The authors are totally against the death penalty and in sync with the notion of protecting human life which has been echoed by respected members in the legal fraternity. Lord Diplock in the Privy Councils case of Ong Ah Chuan [1981] [17] held that the mandatory death sentence should be used very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Lord Diplock further commented in the same case that capital punishment is unconstitutional as he recognized Art 5(1) that one will be deprived of life when capital punishment is applied. Another case of mandatory death sentence, PP v. Lau Kee Hoo [18] is being challenged under constitutional grounds. The further argument came about whether the international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human rights or ECHR could influence or be binding to the commonwealth countries constitution. Lord Diplock contended that: ........ in order to dispose of these appeals ... their Lordships do not find it necessary to decide whether ... it should be recognized as a fundamental rule of natural justice under the common law system of criminal procedure ... [19]
He further stated that: ......... capital punishment finds no place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948 nor in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (ECPHRFF), notwithstanding the fact that the Public Prosecutor in Ong Ah Chuans case (p 660), heard earlier had submitted that
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 12 UDHR and the European Convention on Human Rights did not influence the constitution....... Such stance was also taken in the case of Reyes v. The Queen in 2002. [20]
Lord Bingham of Cornhill also stated in his Privy Council judgment in Reyes case that the mandatory death sentence has infringed both the provision to protect the right to life and protection against inhuman punishment. The next provision that is totally against the death penalty is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) [21] where it states that: Everyone has the rights to life, liberty and security of person and added that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment A contrasting somewhat modified view in relation to capital punishment is a provision in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) where it adopts the idea of right to life inherent [22] where it pleads that society should not abolish the death sentence totally but apply a higher limitation to the application of the death sentence. The Second Optional Protocol of the above covenant called upon the international society to abolish the death sentence and to only limit it to war time crimes for national security purposes. Arguments against the Death Penalty - Risks of judicial miscarriage It is a universal truth that Judges and Juries are human and that humans more often than not make mistakes. Although most of the death sentence offences require the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt before a death penalty conviction can be made, it does not guarantee a zero error
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 13 result to the evidence brought forward. Many times over, there are numerous factors that promote miscarriages of justice. According to the study of Columbia University Law School, it was conclusively found that 2/3 of all death sentence trials have substantial errors. In the Taiwanese case of Chiang Kuo-ching [23] Taiwanese prosecutors came forward to certify that Chiang Kuo-ching who was a private in the Air Force, had been wrongly executed in August 1997. He was convicted for the rape and murder of a 5 year old girl at the air force headquarters compound. It was found that the nine military officers in-charge of investigating this case had used coercion and torture to extract the confession. Society should be mindful that the death sentence has an irreversible effect. Life taken cannot be replaced or reversed when wrongful execution is found. The issue that the authors would like to raise here is: Who ought be responsible for wrongful executions? People are very quick to condemn wrongful persons to the gallows but very often disappear into thin air when asked to take responsibility for their miscalculated actions. Hence, by acknowledging that judges are humans and there are many factors beyond the control of humans that could cause wrongful execution, the public should protect their rights to life by supporting the abolition of the death sentence so as to reduce the risk to nothing. Arguments against the Death Penalty - A religious perspective The Islamic View As Islam is the official religion in Malaysia as per the Federal Constitution, the Islamic point of view will be a valuable insight. One of the most famous verses that is almost always raised when dealing with death sentences are as follows: [24]
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 14 Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law. This verse has given a clear picture into the underlying principle of Islam where no one should be given the right to kill anyone unless it is in accordance to the law. This could be an affirmative statement for the usage of the death sentence in a legal system in the view of Islam. However, it would be crucial to bear in mind the question of law where what could be considered as just to the extent of taking ones life; akin to our discussion in the preceding chapter earlier, and the important role and responsibility the judiciary needs to bear when using such types of sentencing. The Holy Quran states that: [25]
We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal It portrays the retributive nature that is profoundly brought forward. Another important verse is found in Surah Ah-nahl, [26]
And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah) then punish them with the like of what which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As- Sabirin This clause emphasized the virtue of patience instead of retribution against the one who offended you. Pursuant to this, it is very important to point out that the victims family could choose to opt for blood money or compensation or other form of punishment apart from the death sentence and such an option could be made compulsory for aggrieved family members of the victim instead of just providing it as an alternative as per Surah Ah-nahl.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 15 In Islamic law, the members of the victims family can opt for [27] a number of sentences. They can either choose the death sentence, diyah (blood money) or to pardon the offender for all his crimes. Diyah or blood money is the compensation by the convicted party to the victims family for the loss of life. It is good to be aware that the current law can only offer death by hanging but disregards the welfare of the surviving spouse or family members that commonly depend on the income by the deceased. It is very appropriate to have a system where a young widow with several children can receive temporary support temporary by an order of diyah by the court. This can protect the interest of society and at the same time abide by the principles of most religions against the taking of lives of others. Another important point to be made against retribution is that the deceased cannot be brought back to life and the loss of the family cannot be fully restored even with the sparing of another life for the life that has been taken away. It is not interchangeable. Another option is to pardon the alleged convict from the crime. The option of pardoning should be regarded as a catalyst to homicide where it should be considered as an option to preserve human life and it would be helpful to heal the ordeal suffered by family members. Not everyone will have the intention to take the other lives as retribution. It is important that the court should decide according to the wishes of the victims family. The Christian view There is a mixed perception of the death sentence from the perspective of Christianity. It can be traced back to the Old Testament in the book of Exodus, [28] chapter 21, verses 23-36 where it was stated that:
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 16 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. It was also can be found in the book of Numbers: [29]
Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. There is a long list of verses in the Old Testament of the Bible that support the death penalty. However, as society has evolved, there are some opinions from jurists as well leaders of Christian society that have stepped up with a different perspective. One of the most important statements was by Pope John Paul II [30] saying that: This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with Gods plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offence And the Pope further added: It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 17 not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. The Buddhist View The teaching of Buddhism is strongly rooted to the principle of karma where bad deeds will be paid back by bad outcomes or consequences. The Dhammapada, which is one of the most important books of Buddhism states the following in the final verses of Chapter 10: Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishments; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill Such is the Buddhist view that is clearly against the notion of taking anothers life, hence demonstrating that all Buddhists, if following the true nature of their beliefs are against the death penalty as well. The other book of Buddhism teachings is the Panca-sila: [31]
Abstaining from the destruction of life encourages the development of compassion (karuna) for all beings. Everyone has great spiritual potential waiting to be unleashed no matter how depraved they might look. All life is to be treasured. It matters not how lowly such life may seem. Treasuring the lives of those who, in many cases, have not valued lives of others is an act of spiritual courage. This profound verse epitomises that there should be compassion where an offence has been done irrespective of its severity. People should not resort to the death sentence as it will mean that there is an unappreciative attitude of the people towards the value of lives. No matter how low lying
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 18 is a life; whether a serial killer or a treason criminal, they should be given a chance to redeem themselves through rehabilitation and imprisonment and with good teachings whilst in detention, the idea would be to provide a new life and chance to these once abhorred beings. Global Political Views In Malaysia, countless leaders have expressed their disgust and dissatisfaction against the current capital punishment laws. For instance, the Bukit Bendera MP in Penang, Liew Chin Tong, had boldly came forward with his personal opinion that capital punishment is a cruel sentence against the human rights and continued explaining that: Convicts can be prevented from reoffending via life sentence, without the necessity to take their lives, He further stated that the death sentence does not serve as an effective tool for justice. [32]
Such a stance has been supported by Dato Seri Mohammad Nazri Aziz in the Sunday Star English newspaper [33] who stated: If it is wrong to take someones life, then the government should not do it either. No criminal justice system is perfect. You take a mans life and years later, you find out that another person did the crime. What can you do? This is a good explanation to do away with the death sentence as people are well aware that once a life is taken away, it cannot be retrieved. Who in this event will have to be responsible if a wrong life is taken? The other question that arises is that Is it justifiable and worth the price to take ones life when the main function of punishment was to deter future repetition of the same offence?
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 19 However, there are surprisingly some leaders from the West that have reverted to the old position to agree with the death sentence. One of them is the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. He publicly mentioned that: there are times where capital punishment is appropriate, [34]
It was followed by the support by NDP MP Joe Comartin of Canada saying that viable, useful tool for a society and commented that the government will keep the option open. The ruling to abolish the death sentence from the Canadian legal system was made in 2002. However, there were disagreements from some parties raising the fear of opening the floodgates to the attack of terrorists in Canada when the death sentence was abolished. Vic Toews, who is now Canadas Public Safety Minister said that: The court has opened up a door to allowing terrorists and murderers from other jurisdictions to come to Canada Recently, there was another very important remark by the Justice Minister of Taiwan, Wang Ching-Feng, who publicly opined against the death penalty in Taiwan. She boldly resigned from her post after the failed attempt in reforming the law against the death penalty as the Taiwanese public failed to show support for her beliefs. She stated: I would rather step down than sign any death warrant, and If these convicts can have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, I would be very happy to be executed or even go to hell in their stead.
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 20 In 2011, Japans newly elected Justice Minister, Satsuki Eda, said that he was personally against the death sentence and will take extra measures when dealing with these issues. These are only a few of the recent statements compiled to show that there is a move to do away with capital punishment at all levels of society. If the authors were to compile all the statements produced by leaders in their stand against capital punishment, really, there will be a continuous wave of attacks against the senseless current laws relating to capital punishment. Isnt this evidence and stance demonstrated by all levels of the public strong and valid enough for countries who still practice capital punishment to review their laws and abolish capital punishment once and for all? Conclusion The authors hope that with inclusion of such comparative graphs into this paper, coupled with numerous instances and examples on why capital punishment should be abolished, it is sincerely hoped that legislators and law makers will take notice and have good reason to conduct more conclusive surveys and analysis to determine the actual correlation between the death sentence and the commission of crimes to conclusively determine whether the death sentence should remain or be abolished once and for all. In a nutshell, the authors conclude that the death sentence is archaic and senseless, not a tool for justice, rather an out dated weapon used indiscriminately. ____________________________________________________________ * Lecturer in Law, Multimedia University ** Senior Lecturer in Law, Multimedia University
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 21 *** Researcher in Law, Multimedia University Endnotes: [1] The most famous being the Halifax Gibbet, a monolithic wooden structure created from two fifteen foot high uprights capped by a horizontal beam. The blade was the head of an axe, attached to the bottom of a four and a half foot wooden block which slid up and down through grooves in the uprights. This device was mounted on a huge platform about 4 feet high.
[2] Crucifixion is an ancient method of painful execution in which the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang until dead.
[3] Death by boiling is a method of execution in which a person is killed by being immersed in a boiling liquid such as water or oil. While not as common as other methods of execution, boiling to death has been used in many parts of Europe and Asia.
[4] Hanging is the lethal suspension of a person by a ligature. The Oxford English Dictionary states that hanging in this sense is specifically to put to death by suspension by the neck, though it formerly also referred to crucifixion and death by impalement in which the body would remain hanging. Turvey, Brent (1996). A guide to the physical analysis of ligature patterns in homicide investigations. [5] Lethal injection is done by injecting a fatal dose of drugs (which could comprise of a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) for the express purpose of causing immediate death. [6] Execution by electrocution, usually performed using an electric chair, is an execution method originating in the United States in which the
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 22 condemned person is strapped to a specially built wooden chair and electrocuted through electrodes placed on the body. [7] Executed by a firing squad. [8] An act where a group throws stones at the convicted person until he/she dies. [9] Section 7 [10] Article 3 [11] The Death Penalty Worldwide: developments in 2004. Amnesty International. [12] An international human rights non-governmental organisation with over 3 million members and supporters around the world. The objective of the organisation is to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated. [13] Courtesy of Sitham and Associates, Advocates & Solicitors, Penang [14] Malaysian Human Rights Report 2001, SUARAM [15] On the 30 th of July 2007 [16] September 2000 [17] [1981] 1 MLJ 64 [18] [1983] MLJ 157 [19] [2003] 3 MLJ 148 [20] [2002] AC 235, at p 257 [21] Article 3
[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 23 [22] Article 4 [23] Dennis Engbarth, No Indictment Over Wrongful Execution - 1 st of June 2011 <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55885> [24] (6:151) [25] 5:45 [26] Verse 126 [27] Dr Syed Ahmad SA Alsagoff, Victim Compensation For Homicide For All Malaysian [28] New American Standard Bible [29] Chapter 35: verse 30 [30] Evangelium Vitae: Iaoness Paulus PP II: Paragraph 56 [31] The Five Precepts: paca-sila, edited by John T. Bullitt. Access to Insight, 19 September 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html. Retrieved on 7 February 2012. [32] Media statement by DAP MP for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong on 2 nd April 2011 in George Town, Penang. [33] Reported on 9 th August 2011 in NST <:Malaysian minister says wrong to use death penalty http://www.nst.com.my/articles/Malaysianministersays_wrong_tousedeat hpenalty/Article/#ixzz1UkOJvcR9> [34] In an interview with CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge on 18 th January 2011.