64 Pro Death Penalty Quotes by Judges from Asian Countries

The qualities that one should look for in a judge are a burning desire to be fair and impartial; the courage to uphold the law and strike down injustice; compassion, coupled with an understanding of human frailties; and lastly, love for the law. ["A giant of S'pore legal history". The Straits Times. June 6, 2005.]

I hope the day will never come when the guilt or innocence of anyone in Singapore is decided by politics. Your guilt or innocence on this charge is decided by the law of the land, by the courts and by the judges. No one, least of all a politician, is above the law. The law is enacted by Parliament.

Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act provides Judges with the discretion to impose either life imprisonment and caning or the death penalty. A general observation from the reported kidnapping cases is that the death penalty has almost never been imposed.  In Sia Ah Kew and Others v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal substituted the death sentence imposed in the High Court with life imprisonment and caning for an offence of kidnapping. The Court rejected the view of the trial Judges that “the alternative sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed only when there are some very exceptional circumstances which do not justify the imposition of the death sentence” as erroneous. Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin explained:

It is a long and well established principle of sentencing that the Legislature in fixing the maximum penalty for a criminal offence intends it only for the worst cases. However, in the case of kidnapping for ransom the discretion given to the courts as regards the sentence is, as earlier stated, very limited in scope. In our opinion the maximum sentence … would be appropriate where the manner of the kidnapping or the acts or conduct of the kidnappers are such as to outrage the feelings of the community.

''Courts must remember not just rights of the criminal but also the victims,'' he said, sentencing gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab to death on five counts.

He quoted extensively from Supreme Court judgments, views expressed by experts on jurisprudence and law reports to say why it was a must to put a terrorist like Kasab to death. ''If we want to enjoy an effective system of law then the punishment we give must be proportional to the crime,'' Tahaliyani observed.

The judge drew attention to the fact that Kasab's crimes, especially the murder of women and children, spoke of his extreme depravity. ''There was neither remorse nor repentance on his part. It is a fit case for death,'' he said.

Friday 13 August 2010 - For Chief Justice Shehab al Hammadi, a courtroom is set up for a single purpose: for the accused to present their best defence.

Even the gavel is a symbol of coercion, he said, and does not belong in his courtroom. Chief Justice al Hammadi, who presides over all state security cases at the Federal Supreme Court, says it is the judge's responsibility to ensure defendants believe in the system. "The basic principle that governs the relationship between a defendant and a judge is that the defendant should be fully confident he or she is arraigned before a fair trial and a court of law," Chief Justice al Hammadi said in a rare interview. "The defendant should also be confident the judge is an independent judge, who does not represent any party, and that the court derives its decisions from the constitution."

"Ignorance breeds injustices; a judge may want to be just, but because he is not aware of all aspects of the law, he judges wrongly. Knowledge, when combined with fairness, leads to justice."

Chief Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti on 31 October 2005, his last day in office, justifying death penalty and referring to Delhi blasts on 29 October 2005, said "What other penalty would suit perpetrators of such brutal acts? What other penalty is called for if the crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt? What happens is that, we forget the past. We see only the face of the accused, who is before us and his family. We forget the victims and their families."

On Monday 21 February 2011, a division bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R.V. More delivered the verdict, holding him guilty on four counts. Kasab now has 30 days to appeal in the Supreme Court. Two Indian co-accused, alleged to be his accomplices, were let off by the court for lack of evidence.

“We feel that we would never be as confident as we are today in confirming the death sentence,’ the bench said, justifying the capital punishment awarded to Kasab.

Qasab was one of 10 gunmen who carried out co-ordinated attacks on key Bombay landmarks that included two hotels, the city’s train station and a Jewish centre, besieging them for nearly three days. The gunmen had arrived by sea from near the southern Pakistani city of Karachi. Within hours, Qasab was captured by the train station’s close circuit television firing casually from an AK47 assault rifle at groups of terrified passengers, including women and children.

“The case was of extreme brutality. The crime was enormous and pre-planned. It was a threat to society,” judges Ranjana Desai and Ranjit More said in their order confirming the death penalty.

“Qasab killed innocent people mercilessly. He never showed any remorse,” the judges declared.

Mr Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Haji Abdullah delivered his judgment after a 13-day hearing at which mother and son were jointly charged with dadah trafficking at the Bayan Lepas international airport here at 5.10pm on Feb 9, 1985.

The Cohens, who are both New Zealand citizens from Auckland, were charged under section 39B of the amended Dangerous Drugs Act, which carries the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Mr Justice Mohammed Dzaiddin , in convicting Lorraine, said that section 39B(2) of the Act clearly provided that anyone found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs shall be punished on conviction with death.

"The rigour of this punishment is too well known and the accused (Lorraine), being no stranger to Malaysia, cannot complain that she did not know the law and the penalty for trafficking. Prior to her arrest, she was in Penang for two months and previous to that she had also visited Singapore and entered Malaysia through the Causeway in Johore Baru.”

In an interview with The Straits Times in 1996, the gruff, no-nonsense man brushed off the 'Hanging Judge' sobriquet, saying his conscience was clear. 'I'm satisfied that I've made no mistake and that I've done my duty according to the law,' he said.

Monday 21 November 2011 - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Seiichi Endo, a former senior member of the Aum Supreme Truth cult who was sentenced to death by lower courts for his involvement in four cases, some involving murder, essentially bringing to an end a series of Aum-related trials that lasted more than 16 years.

Endo, a 51-year-old former veterinarian and virologist, is set to become the 13th member of the cult to have a death sentence finalized.

Endo was given the death penalty by lower courts for conspiring with Aum founder Shoko Asahara, whose real name is Chizuo Matsumoto, and playing a central role in the sarin nerve gas attacks in Nagano Prefecture in 1994 and on the Tokyo subway system in 1995.

"The crimes were committed in an organized and systematic manner, to defend the cult and as a challenge to a law-abiding nation," presiding Justice Seishi Kanetsuki of the Supreme Court's No. 1 Petty Bench said in the ruling.

"They were extremely antisocial and showed outrageous disregard for human life. Although he himself was not a perpetrator of the crimes, the criminal responsibility of the defendant, who misused his scientific knowledge in connection with the crimes, was extremely serious," the ruling said.

“The act of the accused and his friends, now famous as the Bali Nine, has made a black mark on Bali as a top tourist destination. The sentence for the accused must be equal to his actions. Chan had shown no regret whatsoever; he gave complicated and conflicting evidence; his actions were contrary to government policy aimed at stamping out drugs.” Judge Supratman said, referring to the Bali Nine.    

“A drug dealer’s crime is of the same magnitude as that of a terrorist. It’s just that terrorist’s bomb, like those in the Bali Nightclubs in 2002, killed 202 people in one night – the impact is sudden. The evil effects of drug takes longer to manifest themselves but are just as deadly, and, in many ways, more deadly, as they affect generations to come.” Judge Supratman said, referring to the Bali Nine.    

The Muslim judge, Arif Supratman, read a passage from the Koran: "We already decided for them that, many souls were paid for by souls, eyes paid by eyes, nose by nose, eyes by eyes, tooth by tooth and injured paid by injured. Because of that”, he said, “Samudra would pay with his life.”

Under Article 1 of the penal code, certain offences including murder, sex outside of wedlock, drugs, theft and alcohol must be tried under Sharia.

He said murder and drug trafficking offences can bring the death penalty.

"The death penalty for murder is the original sentence - a judge cannot ignore it," said the official, who did not wish to be named.

"Murder is an issue that has to do with the victim's family, and it is not up to the judge to rule against it unless the family accepts diyya [blood money] or forgives the killer.

"If we do not sentence a killer to death, the victim's family will seek revenge, and that would cause a problem in our society."

As for executing minors, he said, Sharia clearly states when a person becomes an adult.

"The point is to determine when a person is an adult - when he or she can decide what is wrong and what is right," he said.

Saturday 6 August 2011 - Other judges also expressed their faith in the current system. They said crimes such as domestic violence or child abuse were broadly defined under the law, giving a wide range of discretion for punishment and providing judges with the freedom they need to make an appropriate decision.

“Some people walk to crime, while others, the crime comes to them,” one judge said.

Saturday 6 August 2011 - Another judge said he supported amending the law to make capital punishment mandatory for drug trafficking. “Such crimes destroy nations,” he said.

Asking the government not to keep mercy petitions of death row convicts pending for a long time, Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir on Sunday said execution of death penalty should not be delayed. He also faulted the government for not informing Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's family members before he was hanged.

"If a death penalty is to be awarded and it is there under the system, then the quicker things are done the better it is for everybody," Justice Kabir said at a press conference with law minister Ashwani Kumar after a meeting of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts on judicial reforms.

Criticizing people and groups advocating abolition of death penalty, he said: “It may be added some groups have been advocating abolition of the capital punishment. It seems that the persons leading these groups are living in ivory towers and have never been touched by such crimes committed on the ordinary citizens. The victim is not there to tell the agony of pain he or she suffers. In the present case, there is no other alternative but to award the above proposed punishment”. [Saturday 12 May 2012] 

"There are strict protocols, checks and balances to executions," he said. "We don't just execute for petty crimes." He said that even if a country wanted to abolish the death penalty it would be impossible under Shariah. "It is a religious responsibility given to the courts," he said. There are fewer than 70 inmates on death row in Abu Dhabi, according to guards and former inmates of Al Wathba prison.

"In my view, the stage has still not come in India to completely abolish the death penalty like countries in the European Union or the UK have done. For heinous terror crimes and given India's geographical situation and its sensitive neighbourhood, death penalty for terrorists must be on the statute books to act as a deterrent for terrorists. But I am strictly not in favour of death penalty for sexual offences like rape." [Monday 11 February 2013]

“It is not proper for NHRC to give an opinion on death sentence. But, if you ask me personally... I feel personally that the death penalty should continue. It has got a very great deterrent effect on the society.”

“In India, different types of crimes are on increase. The death penalty will have a deterrent effect on the people,” Mr Balakrishnan said.

Wednesday 4 July 2012 - Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has stressed that the death penalty is not something new to the Maldives and can be enforced within the current legal system.

Speaking to reporters after the minute of silence observed by members of the judiciary and lawyers in memory of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb who was stabbed to death last Sunday, Faiz detailed that according to the statistics of the last decade; more than ten people had been sentenced to death.

As the Maldives’ judicial system is meshed with Islamic Shariah, implementing the death penalty was possible even in the present legal system.

“The justice system in the Maldives is shaped in a way that following a court verdict, the sentence or the punishment is enforced by a separate entity. The result of a verdict can only been seen if the sentences are enforced. This doesn’t apply only to the death penalty,” Chief Justice added.

While most murder cases have been delayed, three hearings on Najeeb’s case have already taken place on the same day the case had been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s office upon completion of the investigation.

Chief Justice admitted that the case in question had been different and noted that the investigation had received the full cooperation of all relevant authorities. He also highlighted that the process of forwarding the case to the PG’s office had been smooth and without any glitches.

He explained that several reasons were behind the alarming rise in criminal offences. He detailed that the only solution is to strengthen the constitution, the justice system and to complete the much needed laws to the judicial system.

“Once the constitution came into effect, there are some important tools needed for the Judiciary for it to function effectively. Parliament members are currently working on bills such the criminal procedural act, penal code and evidence act. When these Bills are ratified the justice system would be more complete and the crime rate would be curbed,” Faiz detailed.

“The Maldives judicial system is constructed in a manner whereby another body is responsible to enforce the punishment once it is decided by the court,” Faiz explained. “Not only in murder cases, but if all court verdicts on all crimes are properly enforced,  we will see the [positive] outcomes of these verdicts,” the Supreme court judge noted.

Ahmed Ibrahim Saif, Chief Justice of the Dubai Criminal Court, said judges were not overusing or underusing capital punishment. “The law made it mandatory that a panel of three judges agree to give the death penalty, because it’s a person’s life they are determining to end or keep,” he said. (Saturday 6 April 2011)

EXPLAINING reasons and instances that could justify capital punishment, the Supreme Court on Friday 12 April 2013, asserted that it was a change in the crime situation across the globe that quelled the voices for abolition of the death penalty.

Despite several judicial verdicts over constitutionality of the death sentence, a Bench led by Justice G S Singhvi noted that jurists and human right activists persisted with their demand for abolition of death penalty and made attempts to persuade the Centre to take steps for its abolition.

"It is a different story that they have not succeeded because in recent years the crime scenario has changed all over the world. While there is no abatement in crimes committed due to personal animosity and property disputes, people across the world have suffered on account of new forms of crimes," said the court.

While dismissing an appeal by Khalistani terrorist Devinderpal Singh Bhullar for commutation of his death penalty to life term on ground of delay in deciding his mercy plea, the court pointed that the “monster of terrorism" had spread its tentacles in most of the countries of the world.

"India is one of the worst victims of internal and external terrorism. In the last three decades, hundreds of innocent lives have been lost on account of the activities of terrorists, who have mercilessly killed people by using bullets, bombs and other modern weapons," said the court while citing excerpts from its 1994 judgment on upholding the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).

Referring to catena of judicial pronouncements, the apex court said "the votaries of ‘no capital punishment" could not succeed in getting the death sentence removed from the statute book as neither the Parliament nor the Law Commission assented to the abolition.

"If the murder is committed in an extremely brutal or dastardly manner, which gives rise to intense and extreme indignation in the community, the Court may be fully justified in awarding the death penalty. If the murder is committed by burning the bride for the sake of money or satisfaction of other kinds of greed, there will be ample justification for awarding the death penalty. If the enormity of the crime is such that a large number of innocent people are killed without rhyme or reason then too, award of extreme penalty of death will be justified," it said.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that long delay in deciding the mercy plea of a terror convict cannot be the ground for granting commutation of death penalty to life sentence, putting terrorism on the top of a hierarchy of "rarest-of-rare" crimes which attract capital punishment.

"Terrorism stands on an altogether different plane and cannot be compared with murders committed due to personal animosity or over property and personal disputes," Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Muhopadhyaya said as they turned down the plea of Khalistani terrorist Devender Pal Singh Bhullar.

The judges also said the change in the crime scenario exemplified by rise of terrorism was the main reason why death sentence has remained in the statute book and abolitionist have failed to make headway, scoffing at efforts to secure relief for terror convicts by human rights activists.

"It is paradoxical that the people who do not show any mercy or compassion for others plead for mercy and project delay as a ground for commutation of the sentence of death. Many others join the bandwagon to espouse the cause of terrorists involved in the gruesome killing and mass murder of innocent civilians and raise the bogey of human rights," the court said.

The bench further said, "While doing so, they (the terrorists) do not show any respect for human lives. Before killing the victims, they do not think even for a second about the parents, wives, children and other near and dear ones of the victims. The families of those killed suffer agony for their entire life, apart from financial and other losses."

Saying that the crime scenario had changed globally, Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhya said, "While there is no abatement in the crimes committed due to personal animosity and property disputes, people across the world have suffered on account of new forms of crimes. The monster of terrorism has spread its tentacles in most of the countries. India is one of the worst victims of internal and external terrorism. In the last three decades, hundreds of innocent lives have been lost on account of the activities of terrorists, who have mercilessly killed people by using bullets, bombs and other modern weapons."

On 7 April 2005 - Presiding Justice Niro Shimada rejected Kazuaki Okazaki's appeal, saying: "The crimes were organized, carefully planned, ruthless and brutal. The defendant's criminal responsibility is extremely serious due to his aggressive participation in the killing of the people as a senior member of the cult."

"Even though he surrendered to police and he prayed for the souls of the victims, his criminal responsibility is extremely serious," Judge Niro Shimada said of Okazaki. "The death sentence cannot be helped."

Tuesday 10 May 2011 - India's Supreme Court says people convicted of so-called honour killings should face the death penalty.

"It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation," the court said.

"All persons who are planning to perpetrate 'honour' killings should know that the gallows await them," said Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra.

"He cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.”

Tuesday 10 May 2011 – "In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving the death punishment."

Tuesday 14 September 2011 - NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that that the presence of death penalty in the statute book means that it can be imposed in heinous and gruesome murder cases, such as those relating to honour killing, dowry death, fake encounters and hired killings.

This ruling was handed down by a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and C K Prasad while upholding death penalty to one Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral who killed his wife and three grown-up children in Mumbai in April 2003.

The death sentence coincides with a renewed debate on death penalty in the wake of efforts to whip up resistance to the impending hanging of death row convicts: from those held guilty of assassinating former PM Rajiv Gandhi to Khalistani terrorist Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar to Parliament attack plotter Afzal Guru. The court noted that globally the movement was away from death penalty, but said that the judiciary cannot stop using the capital punishment for "rarest of rare" cases so long as it was provided for under the law.

The bench held that the court's failure to impose capital punishment for heinous crimes falling in the rarest of rare category would amount to "repeal of death penalty by the judiciary".

Gujral had a fight with his wife, as they routinely did every day, in the dead of the night at his Sher-e-Punjab colony in Andheri on April 9-10, 2003. Enraged, he poured gallons of petrol on all four and set them on fire before fleeing. He was caught in Madanganj in Ajmer district, Rajasthan, four days later.

Discussing a whole gamut of Supreme Court judgments dealing with death penalty and laying down the rarest of rare category guidelines, Justice Katju said: "In our opinion this is one of such cases. Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral. A person like Gujral who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him," the bench said.

Tuesday 10 May 2011 - India's Supreme Court says people convicted of so-called honour killings should face the death penalty.

"It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation," the court said.

"All persons who are planning to perpetrate 'honour' killings should know that the gallows await them," said Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra.

"He cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.”

Tuesday 10 May 2011 – "In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving the death punishment."

Thursday 18 August 2011 - In a landmark judgment, sessions judge, Darjeeling awarded capital punishment to a person named Amar Rai guilty of murder. This is for the first time that capital punishment is being pronounced in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal.

37 year old Rai was found guilty of murdering his own mother Prem Kumari Rai in cold blood. The Sessions Judge convicted Rai for committing offence under Section 302 IPC (murder).

Pronouncing the sentence at around 1:25pm, Subrata Mitra, sessions judge, Darjeeling stated, "It is cold blooded murder and the convict is not repentant for the acts done by him. If we consider the facts, circumstances of this case and the conduct of the accused person then this case can be treated as rarest of the rare cases. The society will lose faith upon the law if lenient view is taken by the Court in the matter of imposing sentence upon the offender of such type of heinous crime. Maximum punishment should be imposed to prevent recurrence of similar offence. Let him be hanged by the neck till he is dead."