« Ninth Circuit panel rules that Elizabeth Holmes cannot stay out on bail while her appeal is pending | Main | Notable sentencing research in recent special issue of "Law and Human Behavior" »
May 17, 2023
A couple of notable new international death penalty stories
A couple of new headlines and Associated Press stories concerning the application of the death penalty worldwide caught my attention this morning. Here are links and the essential:
"Singapore hangs 2nd citizen in 3 weeks for trafficking cannabis despite calls to halt executions":
Singapore on Wednesday hanged another citizen for trafficking cannabis, the second in three weeks, as it clung firmly to the death penalty despite growing calls for the city-state to halt drug-related executions.... Under Singapore laws, trafficking more than 500 grams (1.1 pounds) of cannabis may result in the death penalty....
Singapore executed 11 people last year for drug offenses after a two-year hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The hanging of one particular Malaysian believed to be mentally disabled sparked an international outcry and brought the country's capital punishment under scrutiny for flouting human rights norms.
"Executions worldwide rose dramatically in 2022, Amnesty International reports":
Executions worldwide increased by 53% in 2022 from a year earlier, with a significant rise in Iran and Saudi Arabia, Amnesty International said in an annual report Tuesday that also criticized Indonesia as having one of the highest numbers of new death sentences in Asia.
Amnesty said 70% of the executions in the Middle East and North Africa were carried out in Iran, where their numbers rose by 83% from 314 in 2021 to 576 in 2022. The number of executions in Saudi Arabia tripled from 65 in 2021 to 196 in 2022.
May 17, 2023 at 09:36 AM | Permalink
Comments
I’m obviously not calling for the DP with marijuana convictions, but I’d point out that it has almost no crime and very low drug use. Let’s just say it doesn’t look like San Fran or Portland.
That tough drug policy can’t work is absurd.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 17, 2023 5:21:58 PM
@TarlsQtr: Yes, Singapore's crime rate is quite low, but a number of other countries such as Finland and Iceland are even lower without the Draconian sentences that Singapore has. While I would not say that sentences are irrelevant, there seem to be a lot of other factors too.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | May 17, 2023 6:27:05 PM
While Singapore executed 11 people by hanging in 2022, I find it perversely ironic that the City-State country did not execute anyone in 2020 or 2021, due to the COVID pandemic! Obviously, the condemned were going to die anyway, so Singapore must have halted executions for 2 years to protect the hangman and his execution team? Totally perverse.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | May 18, 2023 11:31:04 AM
Tarls, I'm glad we are in good company with Iran and Saudi Arabia, aren't you?
Posted by: anon | May 18, 2023 5:43:08 PM
anon --
I can see why you want to cloak your anti-Islam bigotry in anonymity.
P.S. The six largest nations in the world are China, India, the USA, Indonesia, Pakistan and Nigeria. Most of them are not Islamic or anything like Islamic, and all have and use the death penalty. Nice try, though.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2023 6:31:11 PM
Bill,
That was the weakest attempt at 'cynical humor' I have seen from you to date.
"Anon" obviously referenced the two countries because they both have extensive deserts (Iran with the Lut Desert, and Saudi Arabia with The Ar Rub' al Khali). There was no mention or reference to any religon practiced in either of those countries. Only YOU came up with this one. Wondering why....
Posted by: SG | May 19, 2023 3:07:30 AM
SG: Bill Otis stated in another thread that he is now committed to throwing around accusations of racism and other "-isms" even in cases in which he fully knows that such accusations are not justified.
Posted by: Doug B | May 19, 2023 10:04:18 AM
Doug --
Could you quote -- you know what quoting is, right? -- where I stated, "I am now committed to throwing around accusations of racism and other '-isms' even in cases in which I fully know that such accusations are not justified."?
There is no such quotation to be had, as you know. This is just another of many instances in which you cook up a poisoned paraphrase to create an intentionally twisted version of what I write.
In particular, I want to see the quotation where I said "committed," "throwing around," "racism and other 'isms'," and "fully know that such accusations are not justified." Those are exactly the words you attribute to me, and they're made up.
Either produce the quotation or retract.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2023 10:27:50 AM
SG --
""Anon" obviously referenced the two countries because they both have extensive deserts (Iran with the Lut Desert, and Saudi Arabia with The Ar Rub' al Khali)."
Talk about a weak attempt at humor. Whether a country has a lot of sand has nothing to do with whether it has the DP. But Islam approves the DP, and is therefore regarded by Those With Higher Morality (like you?) as backward. That's why anon chose Saudi Arabia and Iran. He wants to smear the USA as being in league with "bad" countries when, in fact, all six of the world's largest countries have and use the DP.
That's true, isn't it?
And the majority of people in the USA approve the DP, don't they?
And the Supreme Court holds that it's constitutional, doesn't it?
Where do you stand? With the people of the United States and the Supreme Court, or with the Boston Marathon bomber?
Do you think there is no case in which a jury should be allowed to decide whether to impose the DP?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2023 10:37:03 AM
You are 100% right, Bill, that you did not "state" these exact words. I apologize for saying that, and I retract it. Do you think this would be a more accurate and a fairer account of your prior comments?:
SG: In another thread, Bill Otis seemed to suggest that, in response to cries from the left of racism, he is inclined to make accusations of racism and other "-isms" even in cases in which he does not entirely believe such accusations are fully justified.
Again, I am sincerely sorry to have overstated my takeaway from your prior comments. I am overdue for a meeting, but I can and will delete my prior comment if that is what you would like me to do and/or I can replace it with the revised accounting of my understanding of your prior comments.
Posted by: Doug B | May 19, 2023 11:47:17 AM
Doug --
Thank you for the apology and retraction, which I am happy to accept.
I think what I was attempting to convey is that I hear conservatives routinely accused of racism simply for being conservative, and that this had happened so often that I wondered whether there's a good reason I shouldn't adopt the same rules for judging the propriety of making that kind of accusation that others so frequently indulge without even being questioned.
To the extent you were pointing out that a form of juvenile impatience sometimes finds its way into my writing, I plead guilty and ask the court's mercy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2023 12:13:09 PM
Bill,
I stand firmly against the DP when "life without possibility of parole" is offered as an alternative.
Secondly, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...which you are quick to site when seeking to support your argument for the DP.
Well, two can play that game:
From the 2021 Gallup Poll re the DP: "Public support for the death penalty again polled at a half-century low, with opposition remaining at its highest level since May 1966...".
Continuing: "Support for capital punishment has declined 26 percentage points from the high of 80% reported in Gallup’s September 1994 crime survey".
When those participating in the poll are asked how they view capital punishment when "life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is offered as an explicit alternative”, the DP finds even lower support, sinking into the MINORITY. The results: "A record-high 60% percent of Americans who were asked to choose whether the death penalty or life without possibility of parole “is the better penalty for murder” chose the life-sentencing option. ONLY 36% favored the death penalty. (That does NOT seem to be the majority now, does it Bill?)
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/2021-gallup-poll-public-support-for-capital-punishment-remains-at-half-century-low
Interestingly, a minority of Americans, about 30% (face it: almost 100% on the Right, and a good percentage of them religous fanatics...glancing at you Justice Barrett) celebrate the reversal of Roe v Wade, and likely soon the outlawing of the 'abortion pill' - while the majority (about 70%) of Americans vigorously oppose such measures.
So a very questionable "majority" currently rules with the DP, and a much smaller minority currently rules when it comes to a women's right to choose.
So evidently in the 'Bill Otis World of Justice', it's 'Heads I win, tails you lose'.
That sounds quite Trumpian, if you ask me.
Posted by: SG | May 19, 2023 1:27:05 PM
SG --
You're old (coming from me, that's not an insult) but not too old to keep up.
Here's Gallup's most recent poll, not the one from two years ago that you cite: "Steady 55% of Americans Support Death Penalty for Murderers." https://news.gallup.com/poll/404975/steady-americans-support-death-penalty-murderers.aspx
And more: "The majority of Americans, 55%, are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers in the U.S. While this marks the sixth consecutive year that support for capital punishment is between 54% and 56%, it is below the 60% to 80% readings recorded in the four prior decades between 1976 and 2016."
In other words, decline in support for the DP stopped six years ago, and it has a solid majority Joe Biden would dearly love to get (he got 51.3% in 2020).
I guess you want to scamper away from the DP by bringing abortion into it -- which is quite revealing about how strong you really think your DP position is, but I'll humor you anyway. The question in the SCOTUS abortion cases is not whether abortion is popular. It's whether the Constitution states a right to abortion, which is quite plainly does not. SCOTUS, by returning the issue to the voters, thus allows you to give voice to the majority you say you have. Fine. Go for it. But just as pro-abortion people should have the right to have their voices heard at the polls, pro-DP people should as well, no?
And I'll repeat the question you walked past: Do you think there is NO case in which a jury should be allowed to decide whether to impose the DP?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2023 3:09:36 PM
Bill
1. You walked right on by the stat showing that when there is an option for LWOP, the vast majority opts for this and not the death penalty. No comment from you?
2. A jury is free to consider an appropriate penalty for the crime, including the DP just as long as it is a legally viable option. And if LWOP is an option, they may consider that as well.
3. Roe passed Constitutional muster, and for about 70 years there was no problem. A number of our current justices swore under oath that they would adhere to the doctrine of stare desices, but perhaps swearing an oath is not as meaningful as it was 70 years ago. Perhaps a cruise to Indonesia on a billionaire’s yacht holds more weight.
Posted by: SG | May 19, 2023 4:00:05 PM
SG --
-- "You walked right on by the stat showing that when there is an option for LWOP, the vast majority opts for this and not the death penalty. No comment from you?"
I thought my position was too obvious to re-state, but again I'll humor you. The question here is whether the DP should be abolished. That many or even a majority would in the abstract prefer LWOP is not even to suggest that they want the death penalty COMPLETELY ABOLISHED -- that is, never to be available IN ANY CASE no matter what the facts of that case. In most cases of homicide, I myself would choose some term of years or life over the DP. But there are some in which imprisonment, no matter for how long, doesn't do justice. Thus I want juries to be free to opt for the DP.
Do you? That is, writing on a clean slate, would you forbid juries from ever imposing the DP? Yes or no.
-- "A jury is free to consider an appropriate penalty for the crime, including the DP just as long as it is a legally viable option."
Would you keep it a legally viable option?
-- "Roe passed Constitutional muster, and for about 70 years there was no problem."
Actually, abortion law spent decades being chock full of problems, at least as many as criminal law. Where have you been all this time?
-- "A number of our current justices swore under oath that they would adhere to the doctrine of stare desices..."
Not a single Justice swore to adhere to stare decisis in all cases under all circumstances, nor could they, nor would we want them to. If that had been the rule, we'd still be living under Plessy. But while we're at it, do you support stare decisis for Baze, Glossip, Dobbs, Citizens United and Masterpiece Cake Shop? Or is it just the liberal precedents that are to be untouchable?
"...but perhaps swearing an oath is not as meaningful as it was 70 years ago."
It's at least as meaningful as your darling clients' obedience to drug laws. I mean, they did take that obligation seriously, no?
-- "Perhaps a cruise to Indonesia on a billionaire’s yacht holds more weight."
Name a single vote Clarence Thomas ever cast on anything that you can show was even influenced, much less determined, by Harlan Crow, and then detail that showing.
Should I wait? HAHAHAHAHA Sure, I should wait if I were going to live ten thousand years. You're just doing another smear job against your least favorite black Justice. But still, I'll give you credit for being better behaved than Nicholas Roske, who had his won remedy for justices he didn't care for. Do you sympathize with him?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 19, 2023 5:43:13 PM
SG,
What do those pro-DP numbers do when you bring up specific cases?
It’s one thing to ask a question in the abstract. It’s quite another to place a face and deeds to the person.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 22, 2023 12:11:21 AM
TarlsQtr --
That's a great and telling point. This was actually polled in the Timothy McVeigh case. Result: A majority of those who normally oppose the DP on principle approved of it for McVeigh. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1567/vast-majority-americans-think-mcveigh-should-executed.aspx
Facts matter. Forbidding the DP no matter what the facts are is taking ideology to an extreme. The great majority of people simply won't do that.
I wonder what our pal SG will say.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 22, 2023 11:15:57 AM
Bill/Tarls:
I will rely upon the sapient words of the Holy Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Holy Father, also known as the Pope, who pronounced just last September:
"Capital punishment offers no justice to victims, but rather encourages revenge. And it prevents any possibility of undoing a possible miscarriage of justice."
In 2018, he wisely commented: "(The death penalty is) an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and deeming the DP “inadmissible” in ALL CASES. His Holiness later revisited these themes saying “the death penalty is morally inadmissible, for it destroys the most important gift we have received: LIFE.”
Of course, when considering LIFE, those on the right (you know who you are) are invariably the same full-throated champions of this enlightened concept - "the Sanctity of Life" - when it comes to a woman's right to opt for an abortion or not. We've all heard it before: "But what about the LIFE of the child. Isn't that far more important? We're talking about LIFE!!".
Invariably such folks will ignore the will of the majority in this area, while indulging in their banal arguments about "states' rights" etc.
It is fully expected for such folks to then attempt to distance themselves with qualifiers, such as "Oh we are all for a woman's right to choose, but just as long as it is within the first 12 weeks (or such) of their pregnancy, and only in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother", etc. And absolutely NO ABORTION PILL as the FDA has NO IDEA what they're doing, and only a (Trump appointed?) appellate judge can make the determination as to the safety of this medication".
Such truly hypocritical arguements ring hollow. The echoes of their screams for the Death Penalty constantly resonate across this website, with absolutely no awareness of their own contradictions.
The Pope and I will pray for them.
Posted by: SG | May 22, 2023 5:48:39 PM
SG --
1. What a fabulous evasion. You're not shy about wanting answers, but when answers are wanted from you, we get.......the Pope.
2. You do know about separation of church and state, right? You know that we're a secular country, and our law is not dictated by Catholicism or any other religion, right? So you know that the Pope's view is, in this country, just his view, right? And carries no special weight. Unless you want the USA to be a theocracy. Do you?
3. Still, let me try again to see if you can answer rather than hand up evasions from Rome: Do you get it that preferring LWOP to the DP in the abstract is not at all to say that the DP should be abolished in every case no matter what?
4. Writing on a clean slate, would you forbid juries from ever imposing the DP? Yes or no.
5. You know that your claim that for 70 years we had "no problem" with abortion law is wildly incorrect, no?
6. And let's try this one again: Not a single Justice swore to adhere to stare decisis in all cases under all circumstances, nor could they, nor would we want them to. If that had been the rule, we'd still be living under Plessy. But while we're at it, do you support stare decisis for Baze, Glossip, Dobbs, Citizens United and Masterpiece Cake Shop? Or is it just the liberal precedents that are to be untouchable? The Pope hasn't said anything about that. What do you say?
7. State a single vote Justice Thomas cast BECAUSE OF his relationship to Harlan Crow, and tell us how you know.
8. Since you cite the Pope as authority "I will rely upon the sapient words of the Holy Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Holy Father...," do tell us what the Pope has to say about your enthusiasm for abortion rights. No dodging. Let's hear it.
9. You're serious about coddling your druggie clients, but entirely unserious about the questions in which you purport to have an interest. Your entire answer above consists of simply (1) Bible-thumping religious bullying (in the first part), and (2) diverting the subject to abortion (the second part). Then you go on (a diversionary) offense with your hilarious claim that the real problem is your opponents' hypocrisy.
What nonsense. The real problem is murder a la' Timothy McVeigh, and that you and your allies take his side against the huge majority of your countrymen, not to mention the Constitution.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 22, 2023 8:05:58 PM
Bill,
Holy smokes! If I didn't know better, I would say that the author of this posting was a radicalized pot-smoking ACLU attorney.
Question #1: "You do know about separation of church and state, right?"
Answer: Yes.
Question #2: "You know that we're a secular country, and our law is not dictated by Catholicism or any other religion, right?"
Answer: Yes.
Question #3: you know that the Pope's view is, in this country, just his view, right?
Answer: Yes.
Question #4: "Unless you want the USA to be a theocracy. Do you?"
Answer: No.
Qustion #5: ".blah blah blah...the DP in the abstract is not at all to say that the DP should be abolished in every case no matter what?"
Answer: No.
Question #6: "Writing on a clean slate, would you forbid juries from ever imposing the DP?"
Answer: (this is the BIG one) Absolutely.
Question #7: "...your claim that for 70 years we had "no problem" with abortion law is wildly incorrect, no?"
Answer: No.
Question #8: "more blah blah blah...do you support stare decisis for Baze, Glossip, Dobbs, Citizens United and Masterpiece Cake Shop?"
Answer: No.
Question #9: "Or is it just the liberal precedents that are to be untouchable?"
Answer: Depends on the case.
Question #10: "The Pope hasn't said anything about that. What do you say?"
Answer: See last answer.
Question #11: "State a single vote Justice Thomas cast BECAUSE OF his relationship to Harlan Crow, and tell us how you know".
Answer: Only Clarence would know which case was so influenced.
Question #12: "blah blah blah blah...do tell us what the Pope has to say about your enthusiasm for abortion rights".
Answer: I believe the Holy Father is opposed to abortion under any and all circumstances, just as he opposes the DP in any and all circumstances.
Question #13:
As to the laws of our country being "secular"... I refer you to current law in the State of Massachussetts, specifically Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws, Section 36, to wit: "Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior".
I pray that you do NOT live in the state of Massachussetts.
Next, in the state of Michigan -
Penal Code Section 750.102 Blasphemy; punishment.
"Any person who shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or
contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor". Uh oh, Bill....
Well Bill, there ya have it. All the questions inquiring minds want to know, but were afraid to ask, and all with direct, unadorned answers. Do I pass your class?
And all this merely because I quoted a universally respected spiritual leader who just happens to be the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Perhaps, next time I'll choose to quote your hero, Clarence Thomas, once he bids farewell to Harlan, deboards the yacht, and proceeds to author a brilliant opinion, much of which will certainly be quoted endlessly by legal professionals such as yourself. Hmm...when was the last time that has happened in the last 32 years?
Posted by: SG | May 23, 2023 5:20:52 AM
SG --
You get an A for the directness of your answers.
You get a D+ for their substance.
How do you figure that the Pope is so smart about the DP but so blockheaded about abortion?
I don't see how the 100% opposition to the DP is sustainable. There are cases in which the defendant's guilt is beyond sane argument and the crime is just beyond the bounds civilization has the right to demand. It is also simply not the case that the government NEVER has justification for killing (war, self defense). The DP also has a long historical pedigree and wide acceptance, including (with the exception of the current Pope) within the Catholic church.
P.S. As you've already figured out, I'm not Catholic. I respect the Catholic church and think that, on the whole, it's been a force for good in the world. Religion has plenty to say about moral issues, but each individual gets to make up his own mind.
P.P.S. I'm happy to say I don't live Massachusetts or Michigan. Too cold. I live in Northern Virginia most of the year, but spend the winters at my home in Hawaii and part of the summers at my family's home on Pawleys Island, SC.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 23, 2023 12:02:48 PM
Bill,
You certainly are blessed to be living and 'vacationing' in such incredibly beautiful environs. I envy you.
Thank you for both the A and the D+. Does an official diploma (with gold seal) from Otis University, and signed by Dean Otis accompany the completion of this course?
As to the Pope being correct on one issue, but so incredibly wrong on another: this is merely proof that "no man is perfect", and further serves to prove that the Pope is but a man.
But then you pen: "Religion has plenty to say about moral issues, but each individual gets to make up his own mind". However, and this has been one the points I have made throughout: We are free to make only certain choices (such as which religion to follow, or to not follow any religion), but prevented by the government of making other choices in respect to highly personal issues, such as a woman's right to choose the termination of her pregnancy. Or how about the right to choose continuation of living, or not (euthanasia)?
Obviously, the government and Supreme Court justifies their efforts to remove or greatly restrict "choices" by claiming (a) that a legitimate government interest exists in various areas, because (b) such prohibitions and/or restrictions work to the benefit (and protection) of society as a whole.
Fortunately, each individucal still enjoys the freedom to choose whether or not to agree or disagree with our government's efforts to restrict choice.
p..s. I personally identify as a non-practicing Jew, inflicted with varying degrees of agnosticism.
Posted by: SG | May 23, 2023 1:28:04 PM
