Skip to main content

Death row prisoners in Bangladesh

Once a person is sentenced with capital punishment, he has to be locked in solitary confinement for years and even decades. This procrastination imposes double punishment on death-sentenced prisoners, which is neither mandated by the law nor in any way dictated by the judge

The penal laws of Bangladesh have capital punishment for 33 offences. Once an accused is found guilty of those offences by the competent court, it can sentence him/her with a death penalty as the maximum punishment.

In our judicial procedure, curiously there are not sentencing guidelines, and hence, the pronouncement of capital punishment is largely predicated on the individual philosophy and intuition of the judges. Nevertheless, the accused has to be incarcerated in a dungeon until he is discharged by a competent court or the punishment is carried out. In Bangladesh, the lower court's verdict of the death sentence marginalises an accused as death-row prisoners though this verdict is reviewed more than three times by the higher courts in prolonged procedures. The death penalty may be commuted in any of the reviews, but the accused has to live as a death-row prisoner till the commutation.

There is not much academic or public discussion about the living standards and the portfolio of death-row prisoners in Bangladesh.

In this article, my endeavour will be to unveil an overall picture of the condition of death row prisoners in Bangladesh, which strongly demands a careful deliberation by society as well as the concerned state apparatus. The sources of my information are from various reports of the dailies, individual experiences, and recently a study "Living under sentence of death" by the Department of Law, University of Dhaka.

British India and afterwards Bangladesh inherited the penal laws from the British colonisers. The death penalty used to be carried out in the broad daylight in front of mass people until it was banned by the British colonisers in the nineteenth century. The concept behind the jail system was introduced to subdue the natives by the intrusive occupational rulers. Unfortunately, thenceforth Bangladesh did not appear to have modernised the custodian system of the judiciary in comparison to the upgradation of the British system in order to keep abreast of the demands of the modern era. If we draw the analogy, it appears that our judicial process, particularly death reference, has not yet introduced any sentencing guidelines, whereas England formed a sentencing council with the Sentencing Act, 2020, which is one of the many enactments formulated by the British government appertaining to the modus operandi of sentencing the accused in criminal cases. 

In retrospect, capital punishment was introduced to bring a deterrent effect on the potential violent offenders. But in the present context of Bangladesh, in reality, whether someone is facing the gallows has no or little impact on our ultra-moving society. Our incumbent Hon’ble Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain has rightly pointed out, “the hanging (execution of the death sentence) alone cannot protect the society." 

The injustice of the death penalty system and its lack of fairness are often emanated from the procedural unlawfulness in deriving confession of the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation department has, in recent years, demonstrated a deplorable disposition to wash their hands off a case by impelling an accused to make a confessional statement under Section 164 and more often than not, such coercive confession turns out to be adequate enough by the trial courts to impose capital punishment. The courts often refuse to traverse beyond the mode of obtaining such confession and unwittingly pronounce the verdict on the basis of such confession and thus, a confession, obtained by means of threat, intimidation, or coercion plays vital role in securing the end of one’s life. Therefore, in my considerate opinion, the abolition of section 164 is a requirement of time now. 

Once a person is sentenced with capital punishment, he has to be locked in solitary confinement for years and even decades. This procrastination imposes double punishment on death-sentenced prisoners, which is neither mandated by the law nor in any way dictated by the judge. So, this illegal prolonged solitary confinement for pursuing their legal appeals makes sharp deterioration in the physical and mental status of the death-row prisoners. Enforced idleness causes a variety of negative physical and psychological reactions like hypersensitivity to extreme stimuli, perceptual disorders, increased anxiety and nervousness, fear of persecution, self-destruction, cardiac arrest, dizziness, lower level of brain function, suicide, etc. The death-row prisoners are isolated in such a manner that constraints are imposed on visitation including the inability to ever touch friends or loved ones, even other prisoners inside the same jail. The condemned cells, where death-row prisoners are incarcerated, are designed to divest the accused from the sunshine, fresh air and socialisation with other prisoners.

According to reports of "living under sentence of death" - almost three-fourth quarters of the death-sentenced prisoners were below 30 years. A quarter was the sole earner for their families. As a result, the convict's family becomes predisposed to austerity and privation. The families also become subjected to social harassment by the populace around. Remarkably, the study reveals that most of the death-sentenced prisoners are from a very low educational background. There is also a popular belief that the death sentence is imposed only upon the poorest and powerless people.

A death-row prisoner is faced with innumerable daunting challenges. First, in a legal battle, it is almost impossible to conduct the case in person. Others have to represent the accused in legal management. Here, influence works as a magic bone to thwart the bail application of the accused. This is utterly preposterous! It is the failure of the state and the judiciary, not the accused person. Second, repression by the corruption-plagued jail officials adds further insult on the already inflicted injury of the accused. From the reports of dailies it evince that the inmates are tortured, discriminated, humiliated, deprived of human rights inside jails in the most brutal form. Third, it is very shocking and pathetic that almost all the death-row prisoners get abandoned by their families. Perhaps due to the socioeconomic conditions, the family members have no remaining alternative other than to jettison their loved ones. Fourth, after conviction, prisoners sometimes fail to manage a representative for the legal move. And it is also observed that senior criminal lawyers are seldom inclined to represent the poor convict. Even here, the economic condition of the convict plays a vital role on the rate of his case being successfully conducted.

Confessional, heat of the monumental, accidental and above all previous criminal records must be taken into consideration while delivering the death penalty. For the sake of deterrence, individual/general perception must be avoided in death reference. Bail should be the very first-hand step taken by the judicial process unless the same is injurious to public life. Ancient laws must be upgraded with the requirement of time. 

Numerous international human rights treaties explicitly prohibit the government from subjecting any death row prisoner to cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment. Though the present government has increased infrastructure development in the jail, the reforms of jail operating procedures in tandem is unfailingly necessary. We must not restrict our focus on the crime which leads to a death sentence rather we must scrutinise on the involvement of the state and the society's responsibility and consider the prior criminal or delinquent records to deliver the verdict. According to the study report, almost all death row prisoners are first time trialled without having any prior criminal records, and it is thus illogical to deliver a capital punishment to a first-hand accused, specially since where we are not exactly living in a utopia.

With the span of time, our world is gradually moving towards a ‘no death penalty’ era. There is no dearth of countries, which have lately abolished the capital punishment. Death, the finality of it, requires fastidious care and attentive examination on evidence associated with the offence. In a country, where the method of accumulating evidence is not always unassailable, it seems imprudent and injudicious to confirm the death of a person, especially when he is restricted from extending his full-fledged support to the litigators. We must bear in mind the Blackstone’s ratio, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

Source: theindependentbd.com, M A Hossain, Opinion, September 29, 2021. The writer is an independent researcher based in Bangladesh.


🚩 | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.


Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!



"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde

Most viewed (Last 7 days)

Gov. Mike DeWine calls for Ohio to abolish the death penalty

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Gov. Mike DeWine Tuesday morning called on Ohio to abolish the death penalty, citing data that he said proves it is no longer a deterrent to violent crime. “For the state to take a human life, there must, in my opinion, there must be evidence that in doing so it will help protect the public, that the threat of that action will deter someone from committing murder,” DeWine said. “I do not believe that argument today can be successfully made.” DeWine cited data showing a decline in the last four decades of executions being carried out and an increase in the time inmates spend on death row.

I watched Ohio's last execution. Here's what it was like

As Gov. DeWine calls for Ohio to end capital punishment, the state’s last execution remains the one I witnessed in 2018 Inside Ohio's death house, there is a room for executions and separate witness rooms: one for those connected to the victim and another for those connected to the inmate. Windows separate the death chamber from those watching, the condemned from the living. I was there on July 18, 2018 – during Ohio’s most recent execution. Robert Van Hook was put to death that day for killing David Self in 1985. He sat on death row for three decades. I was one of three media witnesses to the execution.

Kansas AG urges governor to deny clemency to 8 sentenced to death

TOPEKA — Attorney General Kris Kobach on Tuesday urged the governor to deny clemency to Kansas inmates who have been sentenced to death. Eight of nine people sentenced to death in Kansas formally filed clemency requests in May, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s Office. Kobach urged Gov. Laura Kelly to reject them.

20 Minutes to Death: Witness to the Last Execution in France

The following document is a firsthand account of the final moments of Hamida Djandoubi, a convicted murderer executed by guillotine at Marseille’s Baumettes Prison on September 10, 1977. The record—dated September 9—was written by Monique Mabelly, a judge appointed by the state to witness the proceedings. Djandoubi’s execution would ultimately be the last carried out in France before capital punishment was abolished in 1981. At the time, President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—who had publicly voiced his "deep aversion to the death penalty" prior to his election—rejected Djandoubi’s appeal for clemency. Choosing to let "justice take its course," the President allowed the execution to proceed, just as he had in two previous cases during his term:   Christian Ranucci , executed on July 28, 1976 and Jérôme Carrein , executed on June 23, 1977. Hamida Djandoubi , a Tunisian national, was sentenced to death for killing his former lover, Elisabeth Bousquet. He was execu...

New Mississippi billboard warns criminals: ‘Firing squad is legal’

DESOTO COUNTY, Miss. (WREG) — A billboard standing on Interstate 55 southbound as you cross the Tennessee state line and enter Mississippi from Memphis is sending a grim message to those coming into the state. DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton recently announced the new billboard campaign, which features the sign reading, “WELCOME TO MISSISSIPPI. WHERE THE FIRING SQUAD IS LEGAL. THINK TWICE.” It references Mississippi’s law permitting execution by firing squad under certain circumstances for inmates sentenced to death. Barton says this campaign is aimed at deterring violent crime and sends a direct message to criminals entering Mississippi.

SCOTUS: Alabama can’t execute Jeffery Lee by nitrogen; Thursday execution called off

After a week of legal volleyball, Alabama death row inmate Jeffery Lee’s execution—scheduled for Thursday evening—was called off after federal courts called the state’s nitrogen gas execution method “likely unconstitutional.” The state took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping Lee could still be put to death tonight.  In an order issued at 8:10 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that it would not lift a ban on Alabama executing Lee via nitrogen . In a short court order, the justices denied Alabama’s motion to go ahead with the execution.  Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the appeal and let the execution proceed, according to the order. 

With nitrogen gas blocked, Alabama seeks to execute inmate by lethal injection

Jeffery Lee, who successfully challenged his scheduled Thursday execution by nitrogen gas, argued that execution by firing squad would be less painful. The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Friday sought to put an Alabama death row inmate to death by lethal injection a day after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed the state’s attempt to execute him by nitrogen gas. In a filing with the Alabama Supreme Court Friday afternoon, the state sought an expedited motion to set a new execution date for Jeffery Lee, 49. The state said that with a permanent injunction in place against nitrogen gas, the method by which the state intended to execute Lee on Thursday, it could execute him by lethal injection or the electric chair.

Alabama | Judge bars nitrogen gas execution, says method is unconstitutionally cruel

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- A federal judge on Tuesday permanently blocked Alabama from executing an inmate with nitrogen gas after declaring it violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Emily Marks issued the ruling hours after an appeals court reversed her initial finding that the method was constitutional. Marks permanently enjoined the state from executing Jeffrey Lee, 49, by nitrogen gas. He was scheduled to be executed Thursday. The decision, for now, blocks the use of the controversial new execution method that the state has championed since 2024, but the issue will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Idaho will soon turn to firing squad executions. Police will pull the triggers

Trained members of Idaho law enforcement with demonstrated firearms proficiency are expected to fill slots for carrying out the death penalty by firing squad as the state prison system transitions to the controversial execution method next month.  Six volunteers certified for no less than three years apiece through Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, will be recruited to ensure the Idaho Department of Correction is ready to comply with a state law that prioritizes shooting prisoners to death over lethal injection starting July 1.  No one on the team may have faced disciplinary action over firearms, use of force, or related conduct over the prior year, according to new execution protocols the prison system released this week. 

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted an execution that a Trump judge deemed illegal

The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no. Even then, the court wasn't unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed. What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn't explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement. But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.