風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
他持1公斤大麻被判死 今已處決 國際嘩然 各方反對聲浪
發布：2023年04月27日 15:04來源：東森新聞
新加坡46歲男子譚加拉朱（Tangaraju Suppiah）因持有大麻被判死刑，國際組織及英國大亨布蘭森（Richard Branson）紛紛出麵反對處決，但新加坡當局及家屬皆證實，譚加拉朱已照計劃於26日淩晨伏法。
綜合外媒報導，譚加拉朱26日淩晨在樟宜監獄被處以絞刑。他的姊妹列拉瓦蒂（Leelavathy Suppiah）透露，家屬已經收到死亡證明。新加坡監獄署發言人也證實，譚加拉朱已經伏法，是新加坡6個月來首度執行死刑。
CNN指出，盡管愈來愈多國家將大麻除罪化，新加坡仍保有全球數一數二嚴苛的毒品法規，認為死刑可以威懾毒販，必須保留以維護公共安全。
譚加拉朱被控持有1017.9公克大麻，達到新加坡死刑門檻的2倍，2017年“教唆參與運毒”罪名成立，隔年被判處死刑，2019年上訴法院宣布維持原判，預定本月26日伏法。
家屬持續呼籲重審及從寬處理，列拉瓦蒂也透露，譚加拉朱在獄中仍奮力為自己而戰，相信公平審判會證明他的清白。
英國億萬富豪、“全球毒品政策委員會”成員布蘭森24日出麵呼籲停止行刑，“譚加拉朱被捕時，事實上根本不在那些毒品附近，這大致是一起依賴間接證據推論的案子”，認為殺死處於非法毒品供應鏈最底層的人，對於遏止每年價值數千億美元的國際毒品交易沒有實質效用。
當地人權團體更指出，譚加拉朱從未經手他被控走私的大麻，中央緝毒局（CNB）在另2名被捕男子手機裏發現2支由譚加拉朱持有的號碼，其中一支曾被用來聯係運毒，但譚加拉朱堅決否認，稱他遺失其中一支手機，且否認持有另外一支，法院定罪大部分仰賴間接證據及推論，“薄弱地令人震驚”。
國際特赦組織也表示，譚加拉朱被定罪的主要依據是警方在沒有律師及翻譯在場時取得的供詞及另2名被告的證詞，且其中一人的指控被駁回，認為“隻有被告罪行建立在明確且令人信服的證據基礎上，不允許對事實的其他任何解釋，且在法律程序提供所有可能保障以確保公平審判後，才能判處死刑”。
新加坡內政部25日則發表聲明回應，法院耗費3年審訊此案，堅稱譚加拉朱罪證確鑿，批評布蘭森的指控“不尊重我國法官及司法製度'。
Why Tangaraju Suppiah doesn't deserve to die
Richard Branson 23 April 2023
長期以來，我一直反對死刑及其在世界範圍內的繼續使用。 在接下來的幾天裏，新加坡計劃執行另一起死刑，這起案件與我之前關注的案件一樣令人震驚。 如果政府如願以償，Tangaraju Suppiah 將於周三在新加坡樟宜監獄被絞死，罪名非常可疑，罪名是共謀走私約一公斤大麻。 事實上，新加坡可能要殺死一個無辜的人。
Tangaraju 的案件在多個層麵上都令人震驚。 新加坡在執行毒品罪犯方麵有著悠久而麻煩的曆史，因為強製性量刑法禁止對某些閾值毒品判處死刑。 該國政府一再聲稱其嚴厲的法律可以有效地遏製與毒品有關的犯罪。 然而，新加坡當局一再未能為這一說法提供任何具體證據。 殺死那些處於非法藥物供應鏈最底層的人，通常是生活在貧困中的少數民族，很難有效地遏製每年價值數千億美元的國際貿易。 鑒於越來越多的國家正在引入明智的藥物政策，將藥用和休閑大麻合法化並對其進行監管，將收入用於推進教育、預防和減少危害，因此因涉嫌走私大麻而處死他人是特別殘忍和誤導的。 從我是成員的全球毒品政策委員會的角度來看，Tangaraju 的處決不會使新加坡比現在更安全，也絕對不會阻止非法藥物流入這個城市國家。
同樣，如果不是更令人不安的話，這個案子是 Tangaraju 在他被捕時實際上並沒有靠近這些藥物。 這在很大程度上是一個依賴推論的間接案例。 調查人員和檢察官根據他的手機號碼存儲在真正的毒販手機上這一事實采取行動，將電話記錄和短信解釋為他參與的“證據”。 Tangaraju 被指控的同謀——實際上是持有毒品的人——承認了一項非死罪。 與此案有關的其他三人被檢方“釋放但不等於無罪釋放”。 Tangaraju 本人從一開始就保持清白。
Tangaraju Suppiah 的家人在新加坡和其他國家一樣，刑事定罪的門檻很高，所需的證明標準是“排除合理懷疑”地確立罪責。 即使撇開我對死刑的根本反對和因非暴力毒品犯罪而殺人的嚴重不公正，在我看來，Tangaraju 的定罪根本不符合該標準。 許多觀察家對針對他的證據如此薄弱感到震驚，並認為他一開始就不應該受到指控，更不用說定罪了。 我同意。
無論人們對死刑持何種立場，如果刑事司法係統無法保障和保護那些盡管有可信的無罪主張但仍麵臨被處決風險的人，那麽該係統將無法修複。 美國的死刑確實如此，自 1976 年以來，已有近 190 人被免除死刑並從死囚牢房中解救出來。在新加坡也是如此，由於對少數族裔的過度使用，死刑已經成為人們關注的焦點 ，對小規模販毒者的癡迷，以及廣泛報道的對人權捍衛者和死刑辯護律師的騷擾。
我希望新加坡當局暫停審查 Tangaraju 的案件並暫緩執行。 新加坡是一個美好的國家，所以看到它的一些政策回到殖民主義，甚至讓人想起中世紀，感到非常難過。 死刑已經是國家名譽上的汙點。 在這種不安全的定罪之後執行死刑隻會讓事情變得更糟。
Tangaraju’s case is shocking on multiple levels. Singapore has a long and troubled history of executing drug offenders, following mandatory sentencing laws that proscribe the death penalty for certain threshold amounts of drugs. The country’s government has repeatedly claimed that its draconian laws serve as an effective deterrent of drug-related crime. However, Singaporean authorities have repeatedly failed to provide any tangible evidence for that assertion. Killing those at the lowest rungs of the illicit drug supply chain, often minorities living in poverty, is hardly effective in curbing an international trade worth hundreds of billions every year. Killing people for allegedly smuggling cannabis is particularly cruel and misguided, given that more countries are now introducing sensible drug policy by decriminalising and regulating both medicinal and recreational cannabis, using revenues to advance education, prevention, and harm reduction. From the vantage point of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, of which I am a member, Tangaraju’s execution will not make Singapore any safer than it already is, and it will do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the city state.
Equally, if not more disconcerting about this case is that Tangaraju was actually not anywhere near these drugs at the time of his arrest. This was largely a circumstantial case that relied on inferences. Investigators and prosecutors acted on the fact that his mobile numbers were stored on the actual drug traffickers’ phone, interpreting phone records and text messages as “proof” of his involvement. Tangaraju’s alleged co-conspirator – who was actually caught in possession of the drugs – pleaded guilty to a non-capital offence. The other three people connected to the case were “discharged not amounting to an acquittal” by the prosecution. Tangaraju himself has maintained his innocence from the very beginning of his ordeal.
In Singapore as in other countries, there is a high bar for criminal convictions, and the standard of proof required is to establish culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even setting aside my fundamental opposition to the death penalty and the grave injustice of killing people for non-violent drug offences, it appears to me that Tangaraju’s conviction didn’t meet that standard at all. Many observers have been shocked by how thin the evidence against him was and feel he should never have been charged, let alone convicted, to begin with. I agree.
No matter where one stands on the death penalty, if a criminal justice system cannot safeguard and protect those at risk of execution despite credible claims of innocence, the system is broken beyond repair. This is certainly true of the death penalty in the US, where nearly 190 people have been exonerated and freed from death row since 1976. It is also true in Singapore, where capital punishment has already been in the spotlight due to its disproportionate use on minorities, an obsession with small-scale drug traffickers, and the widely reported harassment of human rights defenders and capital defence lawyers.
I hope Singapore’s authorities will take a pause to review Tangaraju’s case and grant reprieve. Singapore is an otherwise wonderful country, so it's very sad to see some of its policies harking back to colonialism, and even reminiscent of medieval times. The death penalty is already a dark stain on the country’s reputation. An execution following such an unsafe conviction would only make things worse.
Singapore defends decision to execute Tangaraju Suppiah, criticizes Richard Branson's opposition as 'disrespectful'
https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/singapore-defends-decision-to-execute-tangaraju-suppiah-criticizes-richard-bransons-opposition-as-disrespectful/
L: Photo shared by activists from the Transformative Justice Collective of Tangaraju Suppiah who is set to be executed on April 26, 2023 R: Photo posted by Richard Branson following Nagaenthran Dharmalingam’s execution. In the caption he wrote: “Singapore’s relentless machinery of death did what it always does. Stubbornly rejecting international human rights law and the view of experts, it left no room for decency, dignity, compassion, or mercy.” Photo: Richard Branson / Instagram
This morning, Singapore carried out the execution of Tangaraju Suppiah, a 46-year-old Singaporean man who was convicted of conspiracy to traffick cannabis in 2017.
After news of his impending execution broke last week, local anti-death penalty activists did their best to raise awareness about troubling aspects of Tangaraju’s case in an attempt to have his hanging halted. International organisations including the United Nations joined in, urging Singapore to not go through with the execution.
But rather than respond to the UN or the Singaporeans fighting to save Tangaraju’s life, the Ministry of Home Affairs only released a press release specifically to rebut a blog post by British billionaire and death penalty abolitionist Richard Branson, who has been critical of Singapore’s death penalty several time in the past.
Earlier this week, Branson wrote about Tangaraju’s case and argued that he did not deserve to die based on the facts of his case.
He argued that “Singapore may be about to kill an innocent man” in the post on his personal blog, which listed a number of issues that local activists have highlighted about the case, including the fact that Tangaraju was “actually not anywhere near” the 1017.9g marijuana that he was convicted of conspiring to traffick; that he not being given a Tamil interpreter for his recorded statements after he requested; and also that he did not have a lawyer present during his questioning.
“Showing disrespect”
In the MHA press statement released yesterday, they start by “correcting” some points made by Branson and going into the specifics of the “drug trafficker’s” case.
The MHA took issue with Branson’s choice of words, stating that calling him an innocent man was “patently untrue” and asserted that he was the person “coordinating the delivery of drugs, for the purpose of trafficking” and that the High Court had found that “he was communicating with the two others and was the one coordinating the delivery and receipt of cannabis to himself, through the two others” – proving that he intended to traffic the narcotics in question.
What the press release doesn’t mention is that the phone that Tangaraju supposedly used to coordinate the drug deal was never found (Tangaraju claimed he lost it) so there was no physical evidence tying him to the crime. If you read the court’s decision, you can also see that the text messages used to implicate him never mention Tangaraju’s name.
MHA’s statement goes on to say, “It is regrettable that Mr Branson, in wanting to argue his case, should resort to purporting to know more about the case than Singapore’s Courts, which had examined the case thoroughly and comprehensively over a period of more than three years.”
It adds, “He shows disrespect for Singapore’s judges and our criminal justice system with such allegations.”
“…respect Singaporeans’ choice”
The second half of the release continues to list the extent of Singapore’s zero-tolerance stance on drugs and the death penalty and cites a survey showing that 87% of Singaporeans believed that the death penalty deters people from trafficking substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore. The survey also found that 83% also believed the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in discouraging people from trafficking drugs into Singapore.
Activists have argues that those surveys results do not prove the effectiveness of the death penalty, but rather the govenment’s effectiveness in convincing its citizens that it is.
A different 2018 survey conducted by the National University of Singapore found that, when Singaporeans were presented with the details of typical cases where capital punishment would be legally required, few thought the death penalty should actually be applied in all instances, including drug trafficking cases. The researchers found that the Singaporean public was generally poorly informed about the death penalty, with 60 percent saying they knew “nothing or little about it” and 80 percent saying they rarely talked about the subject to others.
MHA also accused Branson of asserting falsehoods about Singapore’s “disproportionate use [of capital punishment] on minorities, an obsession with small-scale drug traffickers, and the widely reported harassment of human rights defenders and capital defence lawyers”.
Many death penalty opponents besides Branson have made these arguments about the systemic injustice of Singapore’s death penalty regime. Singapore refuses to disclose the racial makeup of its death row inmates but the majority of reported cases have been from minority groups.
It has been reported that Tangaraju had to represent himself in his final post-appeal legal attempts to avert his execution, as has been the case for many death row inmates since Singapore’s courts began giving lawyers who represented them in these motions heavy financial penalties for alleged “abuse of process”.
In a statement released last year by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) calling for Singapore to halt its executions, the NGO also called for an end to such fines on lawyers representing death row inmates. They argued, “The imposition of punitive cost orders has obstructed death-row inmates’ access to justice and effective remedies, their right to legal counsel — with several having had to represent themselves in court — and, in turn, their right to a fair trial and, ultimately, their right to life.”
MHA’s response to Branson concludes by saying that Branson is free to advocate his own beliefs but he should respect the choice of Singaporeans. Branson has yet to respond to MHA’s statement.
Branson’s criticism of Singapore’s spate of executions last year led to Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) challenging him to a live television debate over their death penalty policies. Branson declined their offer, urging the government to engage with local activists instead.
Some observers argued that the Singaporean government’s debate challenge was meant to frame the issue as being about foreigners telling Singaporeans what’s best for them, making it an issue of nationalism rather than acknowledge the growing opposition to the death penalty among Singaporeans.
Singapore executed 11 people in 2022, all for non-violent drug-related offenses. The spate of executions led to a growing outcry from activists, both local and international, as well as multinational organizations such as the European Union and the United Nations, calling for the city-state to abolish its death penalty regime.
But the Singaporean government has vehemently defended the necessity of its death penalty policy against all criticism, arguing that it is essential to protecting its citizens from the scourge of drugs.
