风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
他持1公斤大麻被判死 今已处决 国际哗然 各方反对声浪
发布：2023年04月27日 15:04来源：东森新闻
新加坡46岁男子谭加拉朱（Tangaraju Suppiah）因持有大麻被判死刑，国际组织及英国大亨布兰森（Richard Branson）纷纷出面反对处决，但新加坡当局及家属皆证实，谭加拉朱已照计划于26日凌晨伏法。
综合外媒报导，谭加拉朱26日凌晨在樟宜监狱被处以绞刑。他的姊妹列拉瓦蒂（Leelavathy Suppiah）透露，家属已经收到死亡证明。新加坡监狱署发言人也证实，谭加拉朱已经伏法，是新加坡6个月来首度执行死刑。
CNN指出，尽管愈来愈多国家将大麻除罪化，新加坡仍保有全球数一数二严苛的毒品法规，认为死刑可以威慑毒贩，必须保留以维护公共安全。
谭加拉朱被控持有1017.9公克大麻，达到新加坡死刑门槛的2倍，2017年“教唆参与运毒”罪名成立，隔年被判处死刑，2019年上诉法院宣布维持原判，预定本月26日伏法。
家属持续呼吁重审及从宽处理，列拉瓦蒂也透露，谭加拉朱在狱中仍奋力为自己而战，相信公平审判会证明他的清白。
英国亿万富豪、“全球毒品政策委员会”成员布兰森24日出面呼吁停止行刑，“谭加拉朱被捕时，事实上根本不在那些毒品附近，这大致是一起依赖间接证据推论的案子”，认为杀死处于非法毒品供应链最底层的人，对于遏止每年价值数千亿美元的国际毒品交易没有实质效用。
当地人权团体更指出，谭加拉朱从未经手他被控走私的大麻，中央缉毒局（CNB）在另2名被捕男子手机里发现2支由谭加拉朱持有的号码，其中一支曾被用来联系运毒，但谭加拉朱坚决否认，称他遗失其中一支手机，且否认持有另外一支，法院定罪大部分仰赖间接证据及推论，“薄弱地令人震惊”。
国际特赦组织也表示，谭加拉朱被定罪的主要依据是警方在没有律师及翻译在场时取得的供词及另2名被告的证词，且其中一人的指控被驳回，认为“只有被告罪行建立在明确且令人信服的证据基础上，不允许对事实的其他任何解释，且在法律程序提供所有可能保障以确保公平审判后，才能判处死刑”。
新加坡内政部25日则发表声明回应，法院耗费3年审讯此案，坚称谭加拉朱罪证确凿，批评布兰森的指控“不尊重我国法官及司法制度'。
Why Tangaraju Suppiah doesn't deserve to die
Richard Branson 23 April 2023
长期以来，我一直反对死刑及其在世界范围内的继续使用。 在接下来的几天里，新加坡计划执行另一起死刑，这起案件与我之前关注的案件一样令人震惊。 如果政府如愿以偿，Tangaraju Suppiah 将于周三在新加坡樟宜监狱被绞死，罪名非常可疑，罪名是共谋走私约一公斤大麻。 事实上，新加坡可能要杀死一个无辜的人。
Tangaraju 的案件在多个层面上都令人震惊。 新加坡在执行毒品罪犯方面有着悠久而麻烦的历史，因为强制性量刑法禁止对某些阈值毒品判处死刑。 该国政府一再声称其严厉的法律可以有效地遏制与毒品有关的犯罪。 然而，新加坡当局一再未能为这一说法提供任何具体证据。 杀死那些处于非法药物供应链最底层的人，通常是生活在贫困中的少数民族，很难有效地遏制每年价值数千亿美元的国际贸易。 鉴于越来越多的国家正在引入明智的药物政策，将药用和休闲大麻合法化并对其进行监管，将收入用于推进教育、预防和减少危害，因此因涉嫌走私大麻而处死他人是特别残忍和误导的。 从我是成员的全球毒品政策委员会的角度来看，Tangaraju 的处决不会使新加坡比现在更安全，也绝对不会阻止非法药物流入这个城市国家。
同样，如果不是更令人不安的话，这个案子是 Tangaraju 在他被捕时实际上并没有靠近这些药物。 这在很大程度上是一个依赖推论的间接案例。 调查人员和检察官根据他的手机号码存储在真正的毒贩手机上这一事实采取行动，将电话记录和短信解释为他参与的“证据”。 Tangaraju 被指控的同谋——实际上是持有毒品的人——承认了一项非死罪。 与此案有关的其他三人被检方“释放但不等于无罪释放”。 Tangaraju 本人从一开始就保持清白。
Tangaraju Suppiah 的家人在新加坡和其他国家一样，刑事定罪的门槛很高，所需的证明标准是“排除合理怀疑”地确立罪责。 即使撇开我对死刑的根本反对和因非暴力毒品犯罪而杀人的严重不公正，在我看来，Tangaraju 的定罪根本不符合该标准。 许多观察家对针对他的证据如此薄弱感到震惊，并认为他一开始就不应该受到指控，更不用说定罪了。 我同意。
无论人们对死刑持何种立场，如果刑事司法系统无法保障和保护那些尽管有可信的无罪主张但仍面临被处决风险的人，那么该系统将无法修复。 美国的死刑确实如此，自 1976 年以来，已有近 190 人被免除死刑并从死囚牢房中解救出来。在新加坡也是如此，由于对少数族裔的过度使用，死刑已经成为人们关注的焦点 ，对小规模贩毒者的痴迷，以及广泛报道的对人权捍卫者和死刑辩护律师的骚扰。
我希望新加坡当局暂停审查 Tangaraju 的案件并暂缓执行。 新加坡是一个美好的国家，所以看到它的一些政策回到殖民主义，甚至让人想起中世纪，感到非常难过。 死刑已经是国家名誉上的污点。 在这种不安全的定罪之后执行死刑只会让事情变得更糟。
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.
