68 Pro Death Penalty Quotes by Judges
There is as
much moral cowardice in shrinking from the execution of a murderer as there is
in hesitating to blow out the brains of a foreign invader. "Some
men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that if they committed
murder they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they
regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that
murderers are hanged." Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, a great Jurist, who was concerned with the drafting of I.P.C. (Indian Penal Code) is very important to mention - “No other punishment deters man so effectually from committing crimes as the punishment of death. This is one of those propositions which is difficult to prove simply because they are in themselves more obvious than any proof can make them. In any secondary punishment, however terrible, there is hope, but death is death, its terrors cannot be described more forcibly.” These views are very strong answers to the people who oppose death punishment with the arguments that it does not serve penological purpose. |
|
Our
sovereignty has been taken away by the European Court of Justice...Our courts
must no longer enforce our national laws. They must enforce Community law...No
longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of England. It
is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over
our fields and houses—to the dismay of all. [Introduction to The European Court of Justice: Judges or Policy
Makers? (London: Bruges Group, 1990)] |
|
“If our criminal law is to be respected, the public conscience has to be satisfied, and it will not be satisfied if gross violence, and sometimes bestial crime, is not punished in a way that will satisfy the public. There are old people who go trembling to their doors at night.” “They are sentenced because it is society’s method of showing that if that conduct or those acts are persisted in certain consequences which must be unpleasant and must be punitive will result. I have never yet understood how you can make the criminal law a deterrent unless it is also punitive. The two things seem to me to follow one on the other.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 28 April 1948] “There is one other consideration which I believe should never be overlooked. If the criminal law of this country is to be respected, it must be in accordance with public opinion, and public opinion must support it. That goes very nearly to the root of this question of capital punishment. I cannot believe or the public opinion (or would I rather call it the public conscience) of this country will tolerate that persons who deliberately condemn others to painful and, it may be, lingering deaths should be allow to live…” [Speech in the House of Lords, 28 April 1948] “I know that in uttering this sentiment I shall not have the sympathies
of everyone but, in my humble opinion, I believe that there are many, many
cases where the murderer should be destroyed.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 28 April 1948]
“The supreme crime should carry the supreme penalty.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“My sentiments are more in favour of the victim than they are of the
murderer. There is a tendency nowadays when any matter of criminal law is
discussed to think far more of the criminal than his victim.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“Is this the time to remove what rightly or wrongly the police and
prison service believe to be their main protection against attack? We have to
remember that our police are armed with a short baton, the only weapon they
have against these gunmen and other people who do not hesitate to shoot and
take the lives of policemen. If this (Death Penalty Abolition) bill passes I am
sure it will encourage resignation from the police forces and make recruitment
more difficult.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
Lord Goddard recalled a brutal assault on a wife in which the accused said, “If it was not that I would swing for you, I would do you in.” He went on, “That is the sort of thing the death penalty prevents. I do not want to joke in this matter, but would be the effect on such people if they knew that they would be sent to a sanatorium or some other comfortable place if they committed murder?” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]“I believe the fear of the rope, as it is generally called among certain
classes, is a very great deterrent.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“If this bill passed, judges will not be able to give any greater
punishment for deliberate murder than they can give now for burglary, for
breaking into a church (sacrilege), or for forging a will.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
The
Lord Chief Justice recalled the case when a bandit caught after a chase in
London fired low at a young constable. “He fired low
because he knew what the consequences would be if he murdered the policeman.
When he was arrested his first question was, ‘Is the copper dead?’ That is what
he was afraid of…These instances make me say with all the earnestness I can
command: do not gamble with the lives of the police.” [Speech
in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“Are these people to be kept alive?” [Speech in the House
of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“I should shrink from the very idea of saying that the sentence of
murder should be life imprisonment in the full sense.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
“Your lordships can be assured that the only people hung are those
guilty of cruel, deliberate murder without mitigation…I put my views strongly
because from experience, one gets to feel strong views in these matters and
should not be afraid to express them. When a man deliberately murders another
he is committing the supreme crime, and should pay the supreme penalty.” [Speech in the House of Lords, 10 July 1956]
|
|
Law is the safest helmet; under the shield of the law no one is deceived. The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law. Those who consent
to the act and those who do it shall be equally punished. The intention ought to be subservient to the laws, not the laws to the intention. |
|
|
|
“Murder is
the unlawful killing or causing death of one human being by another human being
with the intention of doing so. An accidental killing or causing of death is
not murder because, in such a case, the intention to cause death was absent.
The intention to kill, therefore, is of the essence of the offence.”
“It is more
than ever essential in this present day and age that the rule of law should be
preserved inviolate: that those who respect and obey it shall live in freedom
and security under it; that those who flout it and seek to set it at nought
shall be brought to book and punished.”
“You have been told that it was better that 10 guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man should be convicted. Of course it would be better, but that is not good enough. That such a situation should be allowed to exist and to grow and to develop in stature would, in my opinion, constitute a grave reflection on the administration of the criminal jurisprudence of any civilized country. It is, gentlemen of the jury, more than ever necessary in this present day and age that the rule of law should be proclaimed aloud for all to hear: that those who offend against it shall be punished; and those who observe and obey it shall be allowed to live in freedom and security under it.” “Each of you has been convicted of the murder of Dutton and his two assistants. The evidence was established that these murders were committed in circumstances of such utter brutality, ruthlessness and savagery as defies description…The time has now come for you to pay the penalty for your dreadful acts. If ever the punishment fitted the crime, this case may be said with fairness and, I think propriety, to provide the outstanding instance. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you will be taken from this place to a lawful prison and taken to a place to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.” [Pulau Senang was a penal experiment where prisoners were allowed to roam freely on the island. It was thought that detainees could be reformed through manual labour. The settlement started on 18 May 1960, when 50 detainees arrived with Superintendent Daniel Dutton. Over the next three years, the number of detainees rose to 320, and they transformed the island into an attractive settlement. Believing that through hard work, the detainees could be reformed. Dutton removed arms from the guards. On 12 July 1963, a group of some 70 to 90 detainees rioted and burned down most of the buildings. They hacked Dutton to death and killed two other officers. 58 people were accused of rioting and murdering Dutton and officers Arumugan Veerasingham and Tan Kok Hian. Because of the large number of the accused, a special dock had to be constructed for them. The case went to trial on 18 November and lasted an unprecedented 64 days. On 12 March 1964, the seven-member jury found 18 of the accused guilty of murder, 18 guilty of rioting with deadly weapons and 11 guilty of rioting. The remaining 11 accused were acquitted. Those found guilty of murder were sentenced to death, while those found guilty of rioting with deadly weapons were sentenced to three years of imprisonment; the rest to two years of imprisonment. Most of those involved in the rioting were members of secret societies who were detained without trial and had no hope of leaving the island. As a result of the riots, the penal experiment came to an abrupt end.] |
|
“There are cases where mercy and humanity to the few would be injustice and cruelty to the many.” |
|
The head of the
criminal division in the High Court of Uganda, Justice Lameck Mukasa, has said
the number of offences attracting a death penalty should be reduced. |
|
Tuesday 27 March 2012 in Abuja — THE Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher, and Attorney General of the Federation AGF), Mohammed Adoke, has taken different positions over retention or abolition of death penalty in the country. While the CJN disagreed on the abolition of death penalty, saying it must be retained in the constitution, in spite of mounting pressure against it, the AGF was undecided, saying he could not say whether it is good or bad. The number-one Nigerian judge stressed that in a constitutional democracy, neither the legislature nor the judiciary is supreme over the constitution, adding that unless the National Assembly amends the law, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Justice Musdapher stated this yesterday in Abuja at a one-day programme organised by an NGO, Lawyers Without Borders based in France, which canvassed for the abolition of death penalty in Nigeria. Musdapher, who was represented by Special Assistant, Hadiza Sontali Sa'eed, held that it is not the responsibility of the judiciary to abolish death sentence in Nigerian laws, but the work of the legislature. 'The constitution specifically provides for death penalty in section 33.1 that every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria,' he said. He noted that the Supreme Court had in a plethora of cases, upheld the constitutionality of death sentence in Nigeria “When a constitution is adopted, the judiciary is obliged to uphold its provisions. The task of the court is to protect the provisions of the constitution and ensure that the legislature fulfill its obligation”. |
|
Justice, when equal scales she holds, is blind; nor cruelty, nor mercy, change her mind; when some escape for that which others die, mercy to those to these is cruelty. |
|
Lord Kilmuir opposed
Sidney Silverman's 1956 private member's bill to abolish capital punishment. He
described it as "an unwise and dangerous measure,
the presence of which on the statute book would be a disaster for the country
and a menace to the people". |
|
“The murder of a person is as illegal from the point of view of shariah (Islamic law) as it is in Sudanese criminal law,” the judge, Sayed Ahmed al-Badri, said when announcing the sentence of the four men who murdered John Granville and the driver.
“Islamic law condemns murder, regardless of the nationality or religion (of the victim.” |
|
In Warner’s corner is justice
minister and former high court judge Herbert Volney who would like to see
capital punishment become a spectacle for the public to witness, as was the
case in the colonial and slave eras. |
|
Sunday 18 November 2012 - Yet the lack of legal aid is no reason to stop executions, according to Justice Geri Raymondo Legge, president of Lake State’s Appeal Court. During a previous appointment in Wao, he oversaw 17 executions in 14 months. “In the absence of a lawyer I am the advocate of the accused,” he says. “I am advocate for the plaintiff, the defendant and judge. It is not a perfect system.” Still, he adds, South Sudan needed the death penalty because its people were inclined to violence. “If you remove the death penalty your life is in danger. Our people are aggressive. The purpose of this is a deterrent to stop them killing.” |
|
“Let us have no remarks, but a fair trial, in God’s name.” – rebuking William Williams who defended Algernon Sidney. |
|
“Only a referendum can abolish capital punishment in Belarus, this is written in the Constitution. Please be reminded that more than 80 per cent of the Belarusians voted for retention of capital punishment at referendum in 2004.”
|
|
Monday 25 July 2011 - Quoting a book, Kenya's Justice David Musinga said an opinion poll showed 75 per cent of Ugandans wanted the retention of the death sentence and the same case applied to Kenya. “Our MPs would want to side by the wishes of the general populace. Unless the message (repeal of death penalty) is taken across the countryside, it looks it’s not possible to achieve it here,” Mr Justice Musinga said. |
|
Speaking to The Irish Times , the judge said: “The Government should look at it. Then if the people want it they should have it.”
“I am not totally in favour of it. But it should be revisited,” the former judge said. “It would have to be for specific offences. If people arm up and go out to rob and decide to take out anyone who gets in their way, they should pay the price. It should be a matter for each individual case.”
He believes the death penalty had a deterrent effect in the past. “When I was growing up if a murder took place there were headlines in the press for a week. Now no one notices. Murder is no longer shocking anybody. People have far less respect for each other than they used to,” he said. |
|
Tuesday 26 July 2011 - Judiciary officers yesterday said the death penalty as a punishment for capital offences should not be completely abolished. The judges suggested that the penalty should remain and be provided for extreme instances. “There should be instances reserved for death penalty,” argued High Court judge Andrew Bashaija. |
|
“It should be an eye for an eye so that two of us have an eye each.
Abolitionists favour more rights for the offender than those of the victim. A
person who plans to take away my head simply because I have no hair for
financial gains, does not deserve to live,” Uganda’s Principal Judge Yorokomu
Bomwine, said. He said justice should be for the victim, offender and population. “As an opinion leader in my community, a person who takes away life
of another in such brutal manner should be paid in same way,” Mr Justice Bomwine said. |
|
“It will take six months or more for the colonial secretary to deal with the matter and months more before we learn of his decision. But you will not be interested in what he decides, for you are to be hanged Monday morning.”
|
|
“There are people who agree and people who don’t. Police officers killed in the line of duty and murdered children for me personally are the most severe, deserving cases. Take for example the two young women police officers who were killed in Manchester – they were vulnerable, responding to a call which is part of their duty to the public. Children too are very vulnerable but so many are killed.” [Wednesday 10 October 2012 - A councillor has called for the return of the death penalty for those who kill police officers and children. Annabelle West, who describes herself as a “committed Christian”, said she would like the Government to reintroduce capital punishment for extreme crimes. The Conservative councillor from Eastbourne claimed police and child killers should be punished by death.] “You have to trust the evidence. The evidence that comes before the court has to be really tight, so that when a decision is made and a sentence is given, there’s no cause for doubt at all. I respect people’s personal views either way. My view is that I think there is an opportunity now, with the mood of the country, to vote for capital punishment to be brought back. MPs should be given an opportunity to discuss it.” |
|
Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most
principal and important is the offense of taking away that life, which is the
immediate gift of the great creator; and which therefore no man can be entitled
to deprive himself or another of, but in some manner either expressly commanded
in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the creator has given us; the
divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. [Commentaries
on the Laws of England
(1765-1769) Book
IV, ch. 14: Of Homicide] |
|
Justice Mohammed Warsame on Wednesday 12 October 2011 committed Dickson Mwangi Munene and Alexander Chepkonga to hang for the murder of Dr James Ng’ang’a Muiruri on January 24, 2009, in Westlands, Nairobi. Justice Warsame said although the death penalty for capital offenders had been criticised, it had not been abolished in the Constitution. He said the death sentence “serves as a punishment for those who take away lives of others intentionally.” “I sentence you to die as prescribed under the law. There is only one sentence provided for under Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. Death.” The judge said the penalty “has been said to be cruel, a miscarriage of justice and denying convicts the right to live.” But he added that “the convicts had also taken away lives of other persons who had a right to live.” “Justice must also address itself to the rights of the dead.” “Courts must uphold justice the way the law pronounces it,” the judge ruled. |
|
Tuesday 4 September 2012 - Gambian Attorney General and minister of Justice, Lamin Jobarteh, has justified the enforcement of the controversial death penalty by the APRC government of Yahya Jammeh. Jobarteh said the execution by a firing squad of the death row inmates including a 27-year-old mentally ill-man on the directives of President Yahya Jammeh was legal and in line with the laws of the Gambia. “Yahya Jammeh is not carrying out the death sentence
because he wants to do it but he is under an obligation to do it according to
the laws of the land,” Jobarteh told a delegation of elders from
the West Coast Region, who had called on Vice President Isatou Njie-Saidy to
appeal to the government to spare the remaining death row inmates. He said the executed inmates had committed heinous crimes and were tried and found guilty by the courts. Citing the case of the Senegalese woman, Tabara Samba, as an example, Jobarteh said the executed woman ‘poured hot oil in the ear of her husband whose body was burnt and scorched by the substance’. “What country will allow people to commit such crimes with impunity?” he asked. “Anyone with a capacious mind would know that what the government has done is what should be done. You cannot just allow people to kill people and they get away with it. If it were your relative who was the victim of such a grotesque crime, what would you do if the perpetrator is allowed to go free?” he further asked. |
|
Friday 7 September 2012 - He clarified that the sentences are not a political issue but the issue of law and that it happens in every other country stressing that The Gambia is not peculiar. His words: "I think that the most constructive approach should be that if we feel that certain type of sentences shouldn't be in our laws, we generate a right advocacy in a right manner that we can initiate amendments of the law, to reflect what we yearn for. But so long as the law stands the way it is, it will not be right to deviate it. That certainly is not helpful to the course of governance. In governance, it is important that those who support governance should support it constructively and look at issues objectively. We may have our parochial position as human beings and that is natural, but it is important that at some point, we distinguish between our narrow interest, broad national interest and the reality. We should implore the techniques of amendment of the law as Section 18 is very clear and I expect advocacy groups to rather appeal to the National Assembly, to consider the desirability of continuing with the death penalty. So, if you feel you want to appeal for a presidential discretion in a particular direction, it doesn't go through the process of condemnation but you go through the process of a legitimate appeal to the competent authority that has been serving with the constitutional responsibility and exercise clemency in a most sympathetic way. I think that should have been there." The CJ recalled that President Jammeh recently raised the issue in the wake of an upsurge in crimes, particularly murder, in the country. He further stressed that criminal justice, like all aspects of justice, must respond to the changing moods of society. He continued: "It cannot remain static just
to suit certain primordial interests. Any law or its enforcement that doesn't
respond to growing needs of society certainly will lose its meaning as law. We
must remember what led to failed societies and societies that were brought
down, which were once prosperous and strong peaceful societies and what caused
their collapse, or what caused them to go into crisis that involves large
violations of human rights and crimes against humanity. We should not forget
that the major cause of this was lack of effective law enforcement. Once you
weaken law enforcement, the legal system will weaken and once there is weakness
in the legal system, there will be a collapse of the state structure. So if
people engage in corruption and the legal system is not efficient or strong
enough to respond to such behaviours, you end up in a climate of
impunity." The CJ reminded the gathering that once there is a climate of impunity, there is danger for that community. "If people kill people or engage in crimes that have the potential of a large-scale destabilization of a whole society, you now subject it to a weak legal system. So if it cannot really provide a response, then there is an impunity building up and in that case, you will have a system where people will kill people and go without any form of redress," he said. He further stated that there is need for one to be objective and
intellectual in looking at the matter, instead of just coming in an euphoric
manner in one direction just to condemn it. "Yes,
we might have a different political interest, but we must remember that we have
a common interest, that is the interest of the people of this country and peace
for The Gambia, the region and by extension the world," he added. He expressed the Judiciary's resolve to continue working with the government at all times while expressing gratitude to the government for creating an enabling environment. "We will continue to come to government because that is how the situation demands and we are very grateful that we have a listening government," he said. The CJ explained that the judiciary as the third arm of government doesn't exist as a distinct government, but is part and parcel of government in their quest to complement both the legislature and the executive. He continued: "It is important that people understand the role of the courts as the latter are there to decide cases according to law and the fact of the case. So, if a court sits in a criminal case, it will deal with the case based on its fact and will levy decision according to law. If an accused person is convicted, the sentence that will be passed is a sentence prescribed by law. So, if the death penalty is prescribed, the judicial officer has no business deviating from the law. Some of the cases that have death sentences being passed are decisions that were reached according to the law. And good enough, almost all of them went on and appealed at the several levels of appellant courts and all of them failed. In that situation, what is left is for the judgment of the court to be enforced." He also used the opportunity to thank the secretary general and head of the Civil Service for the tremendous support he continues to extend to justice delivery in the country, adding that they have received more attention from him than his predecessors. |
|
A federal judge in Nigeria on Monday 30 January 2012 sentenced to death the feared right-hand man to Nigeria's former military dictator over the 1996 killing of an opposition candidate's wife. Maj. Hamza Al-Mustapha sat without expression, slowly shaking his head "no," as the high court judge ordered him to be hanged over the killing of Kudirat Abiola. His coconspirator Lateef Shofolahan received the same sentence after the two men were found guilty of murder and conspiracy charges. Shofolahan was described by the court as a trusted employee of the Abiola family who ultimately betrayed them for money and power. Al-Mustapha was found guilty of ordering a security agent to kill the wife of Moshood Abiola, a businessman widely believed to be the winner of an annulled 1993 presidential poll in Nigeria. Al-Mustapha denied taking part in the 1996 machine-gun killing in Lagos, saying he was tortured into a false confession. Al-Mustapha served as the chief security officer to Gen. Sani Abacha, a paranoid military ruler who stole billions from the oil-rich nation while brutally suppressing dissent. Abiola was imprisoned by the dictator at the time of his wife's death, and died in prison a month after Gen. Abacha's own death as the nation struggled toward democracy. Judge Mojisola Dada, though speaking in a hushed tone over the several hours it took to read her judgment Monday in the stifling hot courtroom, barely controlled her rage over the killings. Dada described Al-Mustapha as a "venomous beast" and Shofolahan as a Judas who "sold his master for 30 pieces of silver." "I think it is amazing that those
who are most willing to shed the blood of others are the ones always scared of
death," Dada
said when handing down the sentence. |
|
When the Eichmann trial opened on April 11 1961
under the close scrutiny of the world's media, Landau read out a 15-count
indictment which included charges of "causing the killing of millions of
Jews", "torture", and placing "many millions of Jews in
living conditions that were calculated to bring about their physical
destruction". He and his fellow judges took pains to spell out the basis
of the court's claim to jurisdiction. The state of Israel, they argued,
represented all Jews: "To argue that there is no
connection is like cutting away a tree root and branch and saying to its trunk:
I have not hurt you."
Landau also dealt deftly with Eichmann's claim that he had simply been following orders and had been but a small cog in the Nazi machine. "A soldier, too, must have a conscience," Landau declared. |
|
Yea, such is the law of England, the tenderest law in the world of a
man's life. I say again, that no such trial for life is to be found in the
world, as in England. In any place but in England, a man's life may be taken
away upon two or three witnesses; but in England two or three witnesses do not
do it: For there are two juries besides, and you have four-and-twenty men
returned; you have one-and-twenty men upon their oaths and consciences that
have found you guilty: And yet when you have done that, it is not enough by the
law of England, but you are also to have twelve rational understanding men of
your neighbours to hear all over again, and to pass upon your life. This is not
used in any law in the world but in England, which hath the most righteous and
most merciful law in the world. [Lord Keble, C.J., Lilburne's Case
(1649), 4 How. St. Tr. 1311; reported in James William Norton-Kyshe, The
Dictionary of Legal Quotations (1904), p. 240-241.] |
|
There were, I suppose, three possible courses: to let the atrocities which had been committed go unpunished; to put the perpetrators to death or punish them by executive action; or to try them. Which was it to be? Was it possible to let such atrocities go unpunished? Could France, could Russia, could Holland, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia be expected to consent to such a course? ... It will be remembered that after the first world war alleged criminals were handed over to be tried by Germany, and what a farce that was! The majority got off and such sentences as were inflicted were derisory and were soon remitted. [5 December 1946] |
|
It is better that the law should be certain than that every judge should speculate upon improvements in it. [Sheldon v. Goodrich, 8 Ves. 481, 497 (1803)]
|