FEATURED POST

In the crosshairs of conscience: John Kitzhaber's death penalty reckoning

Image
To cope with his dread, John Kitzhaber opened his leather-bound journal and began to write.
It was a little past 9 on the morning of Nov. 22, 2011. Gary Haugen had dropped his appeals. A Marion County judge had signed the murderer's death warrant, leaving Kitzhaber, a former emergency room doctor, to decide Haugen's fate. The 49-year-old would soon die by lethal injection if the governor didn't intervene.
Kitzhaber was exhausted, having been unable to sleep the night before, but he needed to call the families of Haugen's victims.
"I know my decision will delay the closure they need and deserve," he wrote.
The son of University of Oregon English professors, Kitzhaber began writing each day in his journal in the early 1970s. The practice helped him organize his thoughts and, on that particular morning, gather his courage.
Kitzhaber first dialed the widow of David Polin, an inmate Haugen beat and stabbed to death in 2003 while already serving a life sentence fo…

Pakistan: SHC rejects appeals of 3 death row convicts

3 death convicts who had sought commutation of their sentence into life imprisonment for being 'young offenders' lost their appeals before the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Saturday.

An anti-terrorism appellate bench, comprising justices Naimatullah Phulpoto and Aftab Ahmed Gorar, dismissed their appeals and maintained capital punishment awarded to them by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in a kidnapping case.

The bench passed its judgment after re-hearing appeals filed by convicts Qasim alias Umair, Farhan Khan and Raheel.

An ATC had awarded death sentences 'twice' to them after finding them guilty of kidnapping a 12-year-old boy for ransom and later murdering him in the limits of Landhi police station.

In April, 2013, the SHC had commuted the capital punishment handed down to them on the count of murder 'as the appellants were young boys at the time of incident' and the 'murder was not caused due to sectarian rivalry'.

However, the high court had maintained the death sentence awarded on the second count of kidnapping for ransom under the anti-terrorism law.

Later, the state challenged the commutation of their sentences from death to life imprisonment in the murder case before the Supreme Court (SC), which set aside the high court's judgment and directed the SHC bench to decide the 'quantum of sentence' of the appellants.

Advocate Abdul Rasheed Nizamani argued that the young age of the appellants constituted extenuating circumstances for lesser penalty for them. He claimed that Qasim was 21, Raheel 18 and Farhan 25 at the time they recorded their statements before the court.

The state prosecutor opposed the argument, saying 'the young age of the accused is not mitigating circumstance to convert the death to life imprisonment'. "There is no iota of reliable piece of evidence available on record of exact ages of the appellants," he added.

During the re-hearing, the appellants' lawyer did not press the merits of the appeals after the SC had already maintained conviction of the appellants, but pleaded that the court commute their capital punishment into life imprisonment, considering their young age.

Re-hearing the case on the apex court's directives, the SHC judges observed that the appellants had failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding their exact age.

The judges observed that the young age of Raheel and Qasim was not mitigating circumstance, while Farhan had himself mentioned his age in his statement as 25 years.

"We have given our anxious consideration for the determination of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellant in [the] present case, in which a boy of 12 year[s] has been murdered for ransom," the judges wrote in the 11-page judgment, in which they also relied upon the judgments given by the SC, which had dismissed appeals of death convicts requesting for converting their capital punishment into life terms.

The bench ruled that no benefit can be extended in favour of the appellants for their young ages, which does not constitute a mitigating circumstance in this case. The judges said that according to the prosecution, the appellants had kidnapped a boy for ransom and committed murder.

"Hence, [the] appellants do not deserve any leniency in sentence," they wrote in the judgment, upholding the ATC's death sentence and dismissing the appeals.

Source: The Express Tribune, April 30, 2016

- Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com - Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

Most Viewed (Last 7 Days)

New Hampshire: More than 50,000 anti-death penalty signatures delivered to Sununu

Texas: The accused Santa Fe shooter will never get the death penalty. Here’s why.

Malaysian court sentences Australian grandmother to death by hanging

Post Mortem – the execution of Edward Earl Johnson

Convicted killer from infamous “Texas 7” prison escape gets execution date

Ohio: Lawyers seek review of death sentence for 23-year-old Clayton man

Texas man on death row for decapitating 3 kids loses appeal

Amnesty International Once Again Highlights Shocking Justice System in Iran

Maria Exposto: Can she avoid execution?

Ohio man with execution set for July 18 blames killing on ‘homosexual panic’