Report of the Consultation on the research study titled Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Report of the Consultation on the research study titled Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh"

Kristopher Hines
5 years ago
Views:

1 Report of the Consultation on the research study titled Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh Dhaka, 28 November, 2017 Place: Auditorium, BILIA Arranged and hosted by Bangladesh Institute of law and International Affairs, (BILIA) House No. 22, Bhasha Shonik MA Matin Road (Road No.0 7), Dhanmondi R.A., Dhaka Phone: , , Fax: ,

2 Report of the Consultation on the research study titled Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh A. Introduction Background and objective of the Consultation The Consultation on the research study titled Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh (hereinafter referred as the Research Study ) was convened on Tuesday, 28 November. The Consultation was organized by Bangladesh Institute of law and International Affairs, (BILIA). The purpose of the Consultation was to briefly present the preliminary findings of the study. The Consultation also aimed at providing direction for the drafting of the report. The Consultation has three major objectives: Firstly, to identify issues warranting further discussion based on the [1]

3 opinions shared by the respondents of the interview. Secondly, to set the issues that will be given prominence. Thirdly, to provide direction for the drafting of the report. Saul Lehrfreund, Co-executive Director at The Death Penalty Project, Preeti Pratishruti Dash, Research Associate at Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University, Delhi, S M Rezaul Karim, Advocate at Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Khaled Iqbal Chowdhury, Political, Economic and Communication Officer at Embassy of Switzerland in Bangladesh, Dr. Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman, Consultant at the Research Study and Nuran Choudhury, Project Coordinator at the Research Study, Sadiya Sultana Silvee, Research Assistant at the Research Study, Jahid Al Mamun, Interviewer at the Research Study, Psymhe Wadud, Interviewer at the Research Study and Maisha Tahsin, and research assistants from the BILIA attended the consultation. B. Introductory Session Dr. Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman initiated the consultation with warm salutation and the participants and panelists get introduced. On behalf of the BILIA and the Research Study team Dr. Rahman welcomed everyone and requested Mr. Saul Lehrfreund to provide introductory remarks about the Death Penalty Project and the background of the Research Study in Bangladesh. Mr. Saul Lehrfreund in his articulated speech precisely focused on: (1) The objectives and activities of the Death Penalty Project, DPP; (2)The journey of DPP in encountering the inhuman and disproportional capital punishment ; and (3)Expectation from the Research Study conducting in Bangladesh. Mr. Saul also explained the significance of this Research Study as lack of reliable data or more specifically lack of any subjective data and unquestionable research study on Death Penalty is creating hindrance to challenge the stereotype. C. Structure of the Consultation In setting the scope of the deliberations for the Consultation, the meeting was divided into two sessions covering the following broad topics: (1) The study on Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh : Contexts, aims, and objectives; and (2) Reflections on experience and challenges in data collection and data processing. The first session was conducted by Mr. Nuran Choudhury titled The study on Judicial Attitudes towards the Death Penalty in Bangladesh : Contexts, aims, and objectives. [2]

4 Mr. Choudhury dissected the titled agenda into five parts, namely, (i) Background of the Research Study, (ii) Significance of the Research Study, (iii) Contexts of the Research Study, (iv) Aims of the Research Study and (v) Closing remarks. Giving prominence to the significance of the research he canvassed a number of issues, firstly, the Shukur Ali Case or BLAST vs Bangladesh, 2015 (The abolition of mandatory death penalty punishment) and Ataur Mridha Case; secondly, Shipon's incident, who waited for 16 yrs for trial, and lastly, the threatening trend of Bangladesh in awarding and executing the death penalty. Mr. Choudhury took resort to the data of Amensty International, local and international newspapers and news agencies to show the threatening trend of Bangladesh as there is government record of the death penalty cases.. He concluded the session reminding the participants that when a consciousness of rights is reawakening, we need to consider what is lacking, what is needed, and what should be stressed and any sentence of death is blasphemy against life. At the session of Mr. Choudhury the discussants had very significant observations. Ms. Preeti Pratishruti Dash discussed how in India crime record has been kept within record and how that becomes reliable. She also raised the question of whether Bangladesh has a crime record bureau. S M Rezaul Karim suggested, the record of the number of death penalty awarded can be collected from Supreme Court from the death reference cases however the feasibility is still questioned by many discussants. However, Ms. Preeti opined that India has almost a similar process maintained by the government. Besides, Dr. Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman put forward one of the preliminary findings, mentioning the study interviewed 30 judges and most of the judges said being a woman is a mitigating factor, for which the judges would have commuted death sentences to life imprisonment. He has also highlighted that fact there is huge discrepancy among the judges as there are some judges for whom gender is not immaterial. Saul Lehrfreund has put forward the importance of a sentencing guideline in Bangladesh. Having children, family relations has always been a mitigating factor for both genders, he added. He added mitigating factor should not be based on gender. He has also added the constitution itself prohibits gender discrimination. He has suggested focusing on this on the report as it is an important area to draw attention. The second session concluded with Mr. Nuran Choudhury s experience while interviewing the judges. He put forward his findings by stating that he found judges supporting the abolishment of death penalty in idealistic view but in socialistic view they want retention. He emphasized the word "idealistic" as in practice, in the name of [3]

5 maintaining social justice and upholding public outcry the interviewed judges support retention of the death penalty. The last session prior to lunch was titled Reflections on experience and challenges in data collection and data processing. This session was divided into three parts. Firstly, The Research Methodology; and secondly, Experience and challenges in data collection and Discussion on preliminary findings, the structure of the study and dissemination of the report which was canvassed by Mr. Nuran Choudhury, Ms. Maisha Tahsin, Ms. Psymhe Wadud, Md. Jahid - Al- Mamun and Dr. Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman respectively. In the research methodology session, Mr. Nuran Choudhury bestowed how the respondents of this empirical research study were selected. Alongside, Dr. Muhammad Mahbubur Rahman has drawn a comparison between Bangladesh Judiciary and Indian Judiciary. He mentioned though initially it was presumed that the results of Bangladesh and Indian study will be same but certainly it is not. There are some differences. Furthermore, he has mentioned one of the preliminary finding of the study that, the Bangladeshi Judges were cautious while passing any comments on controversial questions whereas the Judges of India were not. In the second part of the session, the research interviewers Ms. Maisha Tahsin, Ms. Psymhe Wadud, and Md. Jahid - Al- Mamun bestowed some of their challenges. Some of the core challenges faced by the interviewers include scheduling and re-scheduling of the interview, extracting relevant information due to their idealistic position, convincing the judges to record the interview and translating questions according to the respondent s preference. Dr. Rahman supplemented by mentioning that a workshop was conducted initially to guide the interviewers. Furthermore, he added, after the completion of four initial interviews the second workshop was conducted where, the difficulties, way to improve and a new strategy to conduct the interview was discussed. He has also mentioned that there were some questions which were well explained by the interviewers but the respondents didn t respond accordingly. As an instance, he put forward the question of, whether the Death penalty is a norm or expectation and whether rarest of the rare case is followed. Furthermore, he has also put forward some challenges in analyzing the data. The session ended with discussing some benefits of the study. [4]

6 The last part of the session was conducted by Dr. Rahman, titled, Discussion on preliminary findings, the structure of the study and dissemination of the report. Dr. Rahman has put forward the number of judges supporting retention and abolishment of death penalty. In both the case Dr. Rahman has put forward the justifications conceded by the judges, such as social-economic factor, victim s satisfaction, increase in crime and so on. Saul Lehrfreund expressed his concern on the connection between socialeconomic factor and retention of the death penalty. He has also acknowledged the justification as an illogical justification. Saul Lehrfreund has suggested presenting the reality to portrait that there is no causal link between abolishment of the death penalty and crime rate. Furthermore, Dr. Rahman has put forward the judge's opinion on the deterrent effect of Death penalty. Additionally, he also mentioned that the preliminary finding suggests that, the judges support the presence of poor quality of evidence, torture, and poor legal representation. Besides, he mentioned that the study will try to stress on the question when such factors are endorsed by the judges should retention of the death penalty be supported and can a punishment proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offense be awarded in absences of sentencing trial. Dr. Rahman has further put forward the contradictory standards that have been found on the question whether the death penalty is a normal rule or exceptional. D. Concluding Remarks Saul Lehrfreund expressed his concern on the absences of the sentencing hearing. He has also addressed the absences of sentencing hearing as a violation of the right to fair trial. Ms. Dash suggested highlighting the factors required for a fair trial. She also put forward the fact that when the lawyers will put forward the mitigating factors when there is no sentencing trial. The report is prepared by Sadiya S. Silvee, Researcher Assistant at Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs (BILIA) [5]

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 GENERAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES... 1 3 ABOLITION... 2 4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FAVOURING ABOLITION... 3 5 NON-USE...