Unjust and Unwanted: Malaysia’s Mandatory Death Penalty

We are sharing with you a link to the DEATH PENALTY PROJECT’s new animation on the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia, “Unjust and Unwanted: Malaysia’s Mandatory Death Penalty. The video was launched at the International Malaysia Law Conference.

Click play…

GCL welcomes Pope Francis’ decision to revise the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Death Penalty

The Greater Caribbean for Life (GCL) welcomes Pope Francis’ decision to revise the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Death Penalty. This decision is linked to the Catholic Church’s belief that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society.

A letter to all Bishops from the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, dated 1 August 2018, includes the new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as approved by Pope Francis. The letter, (see link below), also outlines the development of the doctrine on the death penalty that has taken place in recent times.


Inter alia, the revised text, which “centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life”, reads as follows:

Today…there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption…the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and {the Church} works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

Leela Ramdeen, Chair of GCL says: “To date 141 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.  As Ivan Šimonović, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, stated in 2014: ‘As long as the death penalty exists, there will be a need to advocate against it.’  GCL will continue to be a tireless advocate, not only for the abolition of the death penalty in the Caribbean region and worldwide, but also for effective systems to be put in place to reduce crime and to support the victims of crime. States have a duty to protect the common good, but we agree with Pope Francis that they can do so without resorting to lethal means. ALL lives matter!”

For further information contact Leela Ramdeen, Chair, GCL at: leela_ramdeen@hotmail.com


Comunidad Europea



Arthur Chung Conference Centre, Georgetown, Guyana

23/24 November 2015

 The European Union organized a Caribbean Regional Conference on the Abolition of the Death Penalty in partnership with the International Commission against the Death Penalty. The conference was funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the British High Commission in Guyana. Twenty-five participants came from Europe and the Caribbean region, as well as numerous participants from Guyana. The following organizations were also represented: the European External Action Service; the International Commission against the Death Penalty; the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Abolition of the Death Penalty, the World Coalition against the Death Penalty; Greater Caribbean for Life; Parliamentarians for Global Action; Guyana Human Rights Association; Justice Institute Guyana; Human Rights Commission Belize; National Human Rights Defence Network Haiti; and the Ministry of Legal Affairs of Guyana.

Conclusions of the conference:

The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system:

There have been and always will be cases of executions of innocent people. No matter how developed a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human failure. Unlike prison sentences, the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.

The arbitrary application of the death penalty can never be ruled out:

The death penalty is often used in a disproportional manner against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups.

The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity:

The death penalty violates the right to life, which happens to be the most basic of all human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity, which is inherent to every human being.

The death penalty does not deter crime effectively:

The death penalty lacks the deterrent effect, which is commonly referred to by its advocates. As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA Resolution 65/206). It is noteworthy that in many retentionist states, the effectiveness of the death penalty in order to prevent crime is being seriously questioned by a continuously increasing number of law enforcement professionals.

Public opinion is not a major stumbling block for abolition:

Public support for the death penalty does not necessarily mean that taking away the life of a human being by the state is right. There are undisputed historical precedents where gross human rights violations had had the support of a majority of the people, but which were condemned vigorously later on. It is the job of leading figures and politicians to underline the incompatibility of capital punishment with human rights and human dignity. It needs to be pointed out that public support for the death penalty is inextricably linked to the desire of the people to be free from crime. However, there exist more effective ways to prevent crime.


  • Formalize the unofficial moratorium of the death penalty in countries in the Caribbean region that retain capital punishment;
  • Respect international and regional human rights law and standards relating to the death penalty;
  • Engagement and constructive dialogue with governments in the Caribbean region as they take steps towards eventual abolition of the death penalty;
  • Strengthening justice system structures, including ensuring that it is sufficiently resources, that it has the capacity of effectively investigating crimes, ensuring that victims are supported, ensuring adequate legal assistance to vulnerable sections of society;
  • Advancing human rights education as part of the curriculum for citizenship studies.

GCL Logo


EU Conference in Guyana for The Abolition of The Death Penalty

The Death Penalty As A Deterrent: Does It Work?

Leela Ramdeen

Leela Ramdeen, Chair, Greater Caribbean for Life (TT) )

Good afternoon, my friends. We all know the saying by the 19th Century writer: Victor Hugo, author of Les Miserables (1802-1885).  He said: “What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!”  And, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in his message to those of us who gathered in Madrid at the 5th World Congress against the Death Penalty in 2013: “There is no justice in killing in the name of justice, and no godliness in exacting vengeance.”

Too often it is the poor/working class, and individuals from minority ethnic communities who are over represented on death row/receive the death sentence. As the saying goes: “Capital punishment is for those who have no capital.”

Let me state from the outset that GCL believes that society has a right to protect itself from persons who commit heinous crimes and offenders must be held accountable. However, we believe that non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect society from offenders.

While GCL condemns the rise of violent crime in the Greater Caribbean region, and stands in solidarity with the victims of crime, members reject the notion that capital punishment will act as a deterrent or foster respect for life in our communities. What is urgent is for governments to consider the root causes of crime.

  1. See General Assembly of the United Nations:Resolution 65/206 of 2012 and 69/186 of 18 Dec 2014 –– endorse the claim that there is “no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty.“ Convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty…”
  2. Here in our Caribbean region, The Honourable the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ivor Archieof Trinidad and Tobago, said at the opening of the Law Term, 2010: “I am yet to see any persuasive empirical evidence that executions significantly reduce murder or crime rates generally… social scientists…suggest(s) that the certainty of conviction, and within a reasonably quick time, is a more potent factor.”

And at the opening of the Law Term this year (16 September 2015), he said that:

“Over the past few years the number of persons awaiting trial for murder has risen to more than 514. Common sense tells me that by itself the death penalty is not the solution. Apart from the dubiousness of its value as a deterrent…

Frank Friel, Former Head of Organized Crime Homicide Task Force, Philadelphia, rightly says:  “The death penalty does little to prevent crime. It’s the fear of apprehension and the likely prospect of swift and certain punishment that provides the largest deterrent to crime.”

  1. It is worth notingwhat some other judges had to say about the deterrence argument in relation to the death penalty. I refer to the landmark decision by the 11 members of the Constitutional Court of South Africa – which consisted of jurists from different races, religions and age groups – in the South African case of The State v Makwanyane and Mchunu. Judgment was delivered on 6 June 1995.  The court ruled that capital punishment was incompatible with the protection against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in the Interim Constitution of 1993. It therefore abolished the death penalty in South AfricaThe attorney general of Witwatersrand had pressed for the death penalty for two convicts.

The Presiding Judge, President Arthur Chaskalson, stated that the most effective deterrent is the knowledge that the offender will probably be caught, convicted, and punished. In striking out the use of the death penalty, the Court said: “We would be deluding ourselves if we were to believe that the execution of the few persons sentenced to death during this period, and of a comparatively few other people each year from now onwards will provide the solution to the unacceptably high rate of crime. There will always be unstable, desperate, and pathological people for whom the risk of arrest and imprisonment provides no deterrent, but there is nothing to show that a decision to carry out the death sentence would have any impact on the behaviour of such people, or that there will be more of them if imprisonment is the only sanction. No information was placed before us by the Attorney General n regard to the rising crime rate other than   the bare statistics, and they alone prove nothing, other than that we are living in a violent society, in which most crime goes unpunished, something that we all know.”

He noted that the Attorney-General had admitted that it was impossible to prove convincingly that the death penalty was a deterrent, and that inevitably there was an element of speculation in such a conclusion. ‘It is’, he said, ‘a proposition that is not capable of proof, because one never knows about those who have been deterred; we know only about those who have not been deterred, and who have committed terrible crimes.’

“…Justice Kerigler stated in his concurring reasons:  ‘…no empirical study, no statistical exercise, and not theoretical analysis has been able to demonstrate that capital punishment has any deterrent force greater than that of a really heavy sentence of imprisonment.’

“Therefore, ‘it simply cannot be reasonable to sanction judicial killing without knowing whether it has any marginal deterrent value.’”(See p.64 of the book: The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture…

https://books.google.tt/books?isbn=1555532683 )

  1. NYU Professor David Greenberg and Virginia Tech University Professor Biko Agozinoconducted a study in Trinidad and Tobago in 2011. They found no correlation between executions, imprisonment and crime: “over a span of 50 years, during which these sanctions were being deployed in degrees that varied substantially, neither imprisonment nor death sentences nor executions had any significant relationship to homicides. In the years immediately following an appeals court’s determination limiting executions, the murder rate fell.”

In particular, the study showed that between 1950 and 1980, while executions were carried out regularly every year, homicides rates remained fairly stable. In the years since 1980, although courts continued to impose death sentences, executions took place in just two of those years. This drop in executions had no large, immediate impact on murder rates, which only began to rise sharply from 2003, when the consequences of drug trafficking and illegal possession of weapons also began taking its toll on the country.)

  1. A recently launched book, entitled: Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Arguments, Trends and Perspectiveshas a helpful section on the issue of Deterrence. Federico Mayor,President of the International Commission against the Death Penalty, rightly states in his chapter in this book: Leadership and the abolition of the death penalty: “Rejecting capital punishment is about choosing what kind of society we want to live in, and which values—including human rights and dignity, democracy and the rule of law—we want to uphold….Principled political leadership, within the domestic realm and internationally, is an essential factor in the momentum that is driving the movement for the abolition of the death penalty.

Ultimately, it is the state that must decide to abolish the death penalty and protect the fundamental human right to life. Political leadership has been very important in overcoming domestic opposition to abolition in several countries. Political leaders have recognized that while public opinion is relevant, nations face difficulties if popular sentiment, which is difficult to gauge accurately, is allowed to determine penal policy. Experience shows that the majority of the public is willing to accept abolition of capital punishment once it is achieved.”

— Federico Mayor (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),( Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Arguments, Trends and Perspectives, 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/54a684144.html [accessed 12 November 2015]

  1. A comprehensive review of the research on the issue of deterrence over 34 yearswas conducted by a Committee of The National Research Council of the National Academies in the USA. The Committee confirmed in its April 2012 report that: “research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Yet none of the research that has been done accounted for the possible effect of non-capital punishments on homicide rates.”

These findings are consistent with research undertaken in 1988, and updated in 2002 by one of the leading authorities on the death penalty. A survey of research findings on the death penalty and homicide rates concluded that “it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment…deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”  (Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, Oxford, OUP, 4th edition 2008).

  1. In their chapter entitled: Myth of Deterrence,  in the book Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Arguments, Trends and Perspectives, Carolyn Hoyle and Roger Hood state: “The empirical research conducted over the past few decades demonstrates that no matter what politicians argue or the public believe, neither deterrence nor public opinion should be seen as barriers to abolition.


It is well-known that some categories of offenders would not be deterred by the threat of being executed.  Federico Mayor stated that many of those sentenced to death have mental health issues or were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offence, both of which suggest the defendant may not have thought through the consequences of their actions or the possibility they may be executed. Moreover, Mayor stated, organized crime groups make “calculated decisions and believe that detection and convictions are unlikely” while “those who commit terrorists acts for political ends…are often prepared to die for that cause…[and] unlikely to be deterred by the death penalty.” (See my background information from The American Civil Liberties Union etc.)http://www.ohchr.org/Lists/MeetingsNY/Attachments/27/moving_away_from_death_penalty_web.pdf )

  1. And then we have the work of Prof Michael Radelet, Chair, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado- Boulder, and Traci Lacock,  conducted in 2008. This was a survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association.

The survey asked the expert opinions of the world’s leading criminologists whether empirical research (not their own views) “supports the contention that the death penalty is a superior deterrent. The findings demonstrate an overwhelming consensus among these criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.” (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf ).
The findings are published in an article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99 (489-508) – entitled: “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists.” In the article, they state that the research reported was designed toupdate the 1996 study by Radelet and Akers who had surveyed 67 leading American criminologists on the issue of deterrence and the death penalty. The 2008 study also assessed “if any recent deterrence studies have modified the beliefs of the world’s leading criminologists. The results indicate that only a small minority to top criminologists – 10% or less, depending on how the question is phrased- believes that the weight of empirical research studies supports the deterrence justification for the death penalty.”

In this article they comment on a number of “widely-cited studies” conducted in the 6 years prior to the article, and written primarily by economists. These studies claimed to show the death penalty has deterrent effects that criminologists have not spotted (see Criminal Justice Legal Found, Articles on Death Penalty Deterrence, (www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm ).

Radelet and Lacock state that “the importance of the deterrence justification for capital punishment has declined precipitously in recent years among the general public. In the mid-twentieth century and up through the 1970s, it was unquestionably the top argument in favour of executions” p492. However, as they noted, in a Gallup Poll the proportion of respondents who stated that the death penalty was not a deterrent doubled by 2004, from 31% in 1985 to 62%. (p492).

A comparison of the results of Radelet’s and Akers’ 1996 survey and that of the 2008 survey of Radelet and Lacock, are as they say: “remarkably similar”.
88.2% of the polled criminologists stated that there is little empirical evidence from existing research to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty (up slightly from 83.6% in 1996). (5.3% believe it is deterrent vs 11.9% in 1996 survey).

Radelet and Lacock state in the above article: “Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth…the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.”

90% of the criminologists polled said that the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder.

Over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect.

91% said that politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show they are tough on crime.

75% said that it distracts legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime.

91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect.

  1. There is also the result of a 1995 survey entitled: On the Front Line: Law Enforcement Views on the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty Information Center and commissioned Peter D. Hart Research Associates who in January 1995 (See: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/front-line-law-enforcement-views-death-penalty) “conducted a national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs in the United States. In that poll, the chiefs had the opportunity to express what they believe really works in fighting crime. They were asked where the death penalty fit in their priorities as leaders in the law enforcement field.”

“Police chiefs ranked the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, and a better economy with more jobs.”

Police Chiefs did not believe that murderers think about the range of possible punishments. Police Chiefs considered strengthening families and neighbourhoods, punishing criminals swiftly and surely, controlling illegal drugs, and gun control (to be) more important than the death penalty. The death penalty was rated as the least cost- effective method for controlling crime. They did not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides, nor did they believe that murderers think about the range of possible punishments.

  1. In the past few years, the governors of Washington, Colorado, and Oregonhave put a halt to executions in their states because of problems in the death penalty system. Below are some of the reasons they gave for their actions. (And see: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-flux/#exe for States where there is a hold on executions – for various reasons – on hold either by court or executive order).

Governor Jay Inslee, Washington, February 11, 2014

“Equal justice under the law is the state’s primary responsibility. And in death penalty cases, I’m not convinced equal justice is being served. The use of the death penalty in this state is unequally applied, sometimes dependent on the budget of the county where the crime occurred.”
“There are too many flaws in the system. And when the ultimate decision is death there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system. ”
“When the majority of death penalty sentences lead to reversal, the entire system itself must be called into question.”

Governor John Hickenlooper, Colorado, May 22, 2013 
“If the State of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. Colorado’s system for capital punishment is not flawless.”
“As one former Colorado judge said to us, ‘[The death penalty] is the result of happenstance, the district attorney’s choice, the jurisdiction in which the case is filed, perhaps the race of economic circumstance of the defendant.'”
“The death penalty is not making our world a safer or better place.”

Governor John Kitzhaber, Oregon, November 22, 2011: “I do not believe that those executions made us safer; and certainly they
did not make us nobler as a society.”
“The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is
not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all.”                                                              “I am convinced we can find a better solution that keeps society safe, supports the victims of crime and their families and reflects Oregon values.”

  1. A key issue to be considered in this discussion is the state of mindof those who commit murders. As Willie L. Williams, Police Chief, Los Angeles, CA said: “I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime.”
  2. It is also worth noting that in the USA, where 31 States maintain the death penalty and 19 States and DC have abolished it, States without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates.

(http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82) On p.502 of Radelet’s and Lacocks article (see above), they state that “death penalty states have consistently higher homicide rates than non-death-penalty states. In 2007, for example, the homicide rate in states with active death penalty statutes was 42% higher than that of non-death-penalty states.”

“The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the US, has the highest murder rate of the four regions.”http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty . One can say that this adds weight to the point that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

“In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980. In 1993, 17 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 2.19 per 100,000 population, 27 per cent lower than in 1975.”

(https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/…/asa330092013en.pdf ).

  1. Our response to crime in our region is a moral test for all of us. Any discussion of the death penalty must be considered in the context of, for example, nation-building, character development of citizens and so on. All countries in our region and in the world at large are grappling with challenges faced in producing comprehensive crime plans. But such plans are not created in a vacuum. We need crime plans based on evidence and evidence must be gathered from many sources because crime is a complex phenomenon that requires a multi-faceted/multi-sectoral approach. GCL believes that any approach that prioritises capital punishment as a crime reduction strategy is doomed to fail.

I firmly believe that these strategies, many of which were recommended by the UNDP in their 2012 report: Human development and the shift to better citizen security, can contribute to build safer, more democratic and just societies in the region. At the launch of the report in TT in Feb 2012, UNDP Administrator, Helen Clark stated:

“This report stresses the need to rethink our approaches to tackling crime and violence and providing security on the ground. We need to follow approaches that are centered on citizen security and address the causes of this recent increase in violent crime, including social, economic, and political exclusion.”
The Report reviewed “the current state of crime as well as national and regional policies and programmes to address the problem in seven English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.”http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hdr/caribbean-human-development-report-2012-l.html

“Key recommendations from the Report: High rates of violent crime can be turned around by achieving a better balance between legitimate law enforcement and preventive measures, with a stronger focus on prevention;

Governments should create or invest more in units to address gender-based violence and adopt more preventive measures to ensure that violence against girls and women is no longer tolerated

Because crime harms social cohesion, Caribbean nations must better address youth violence and street gangs, whose crimes are rarely prosecuted

Public security requires community collaboration” (See above link for source).

In the final analysis, the Report stated that while “Crime has become one of the main challenges threatening economies and livelihoods in Caribbean countries…the right mix of policies and programmes can halt the problem.”

We continue to address the symptoms of crime and not the root causes. In spite of the billions of dollars that our countries allocate in annual national budgets for national security, citizens do not feel safe. Death and destruction continue to stalk our lands.

***In March 2015, Pope Francis said:  “For the rule of law, the death penalty represents a failure, as it obliges the state to kill in the name of justice… There is discussion in some quarters about the method of killing, as if it were possible to find ways of ‘getting it right.’ … But there is no humane way of killing another person.”

In conclusion, it is clear that the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is time that we acknowledge that this myth has been exposed. Political will is what is needed today. We need courageous, visionary leaders in our region who will develop their understanding of the nature of the problems we face in the region and who will be prepared to lift their heads above the parapet and speak out/act for what is right and just.

Rather than baying for blood, let’s all work with our respective governments to: strengthen family life; fix our broken institutions – including the re-engineering of the criminal justice system; devise and implement more effective victim support initiatives; invest in education, youth development and job creation; reduce poverty and socio-economic inequality; protect children from risk-factors related to crime; work to restore respect for law, life and human rights by e.g. promoting a renewed ethic of justice, responsibility and community.

Let us go forth from this Conference, strengthening our resolve to stop crime not lives; to build a death-penalty-free world!

I thank you.

Oct 2015 2

GCL Delegation in Guyana

13th World Day against the Death Penalty

The Greater Caribbean for Life (GCL) joins the global movement for the abolition of capital punishment on 10th October 2015 to commemorate the 13th World Day against the Death Penalty. This year’s theme is Drug Crimes.  The aim is to raise awareness of the need to reduce the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences.

Please click here to download the GCL MEDIA RELEASE – World Day 2015.

Please click here to download the Calendar of activities – World Day 2015 organised by GCL Members in the Caribbean region.


Speaking Tour – Jamaica 5/6 October

From Antigua, the abolitionist trio* headed to Jamaica to speak at a Public Forum at Campion College High School, Kingston Sunday afternoon. The audience of about 60 persons comprised mainly lawyers and students. Archbishop Dufour and Jamaican Attorney-at-Law and former Judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Margarette May Macaulay were also present.

The debate focused on issues surrounding the use of the death penalty, including questions regarding Mental Health, the theme of the 12th World Day. Leela Ramdeen drew attention to the situation of people with mental health problems who are at risk of a death sentence or execution. She shared information about the availability of materials on the WCADP website to support activities on World Day on 10 October, reminding the gathering that, as the WCADP states: “While opposing the death penalty absolutely, abolitionists are also committed to see existing international human rights standards implemented. Among these is the requirement that persons with mental illness or intellectual disabilities should not face the death penalty.”

Again, she urged governments to adopt more appropriate/durable strategies to prevent crime. She pointed to examples such as Suriname: a country in the region that is in the process of removing the death penalty from its criminal code.

The audience was touched by the powerful testimonies of Juan and Renny. Among emotional moments, was when Renny Cushing recounted how one day in court, someone pointed out to him the son of his father’s killer. Later the offender’s son and Renny found themselves alone and talked. The man started to apologise to Renny about his father’s act. Renny stopped him saying that he did not have to do so, as he had not committed the crime. 

Juan’s story was also a basis to highlight the myriad of injustices that form part of death penalty systems: the high risk of it being imposed on innocent persons, as well as its unfair and unequal application on the basis of race and class. Strong points were made underlining these inequalities. Leela Ramdeen reminded the gathering of the saying: “Capital punishment is for those with no capital”.

Photos Jamaica

On Monday 6 October, the abolitionist trio had a busy programme too. They appeared in the popular morning TV programme, Smile Jamaica, on TVJ; and on the morning radio show of Lloyd D’Aguilar. They then addressed Law Students at the Norman Manley law school. From the lively question and answer session, it is clear that the students generally have questions about the humanity of the death penalty and of its deterrence to crime. The Trio also met with Catholic Archbishop Charles Dufour who committed to take further action to address issues relating to the death penalty. Later in the afternoon, Juan Melendez and Renny Cushing had another radio interview with Dionne Jackson Miller.

This extensive Jamaican programme was put together thanks to the efforts of Dr. Lloyd Barnett, a member of GCL’s Executive, and IJCHR member, together with the team of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights, and in collaboration with the Archdiocese.

Jam TV Show

GCL Speakers on TV Programme Smile Jamaica

* The trio of Speakers included:

  • Leela Ramdeen, Chair of GCL and also Chair of the Catholic Commission for Social Justice in Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Renny Cushing, member of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, USA, and founder and Executive Director of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (an organization that comprises of families of murder victims who oppose capital punishment); and
  • Juan Melendez, a Puerto Rican who spent nearly 18 years on death row in Florida for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated in 2002.


Speaking Tour – Antigua and Barbuda 4 October

The first event on the speaking tour took place on 4 October in Antigua and Barbuda: Some 70 persons gathered at the Multipurpose Cultural Center in St John’s on Saturday evening to hear a public lecture on the Death Penalty. The event was organised by GCL Member, Sir Clare Roberts, and the Antiguan & Barbudan organization which he Chairs, Human Rights for All. Sir Roberts is also the Deputy Governor of Antigua and Barbuda. He and his team did a great job in advertising the lecture in the Antiguan media. See for instance Sir Clare’s interview on ABS TV.

The speakers at the event were:

  • Leela Ramdeen, Chair of GCL and also Chair of the Catholic Commission for Social Justice in Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Renny Cushing, member of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, USA, and founder and Executive Director of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (an organization that comprises of families of murder victims who oppose capital punishment); and
  • Juan Melendez, a Puerto Rican who spent nearly 18 years on death row in Florida for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated in 2002.
From left to right: Anthony Armstrong, Antigua DPP; Renny Cushing; Leela Ramdeen; Juan Melendez; Attorney General Steadroy Benjamin; and Chairman of Human Rights for All, Sir Clare Roberts. (OBSERVER media)

A number of government officials attended the event including the Governor General, Dr. Rodney Williams, the Attorney General, Hon. Steadroy Benjamin and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr. Anthony Armstrong. The crowd also included many university students and the media was well represented.

The evening was marked by lively discussion, with a crowd that was generally more in favour of capital punishment, including the Attorney General and DPP who maintained strong positions in favour of the death penalty.

The Chair of GCL gave an overview of the death penalty situation in the Greater Caribbean region, listing the many rulings and guidelines by the Judicial Council of the Privy Council which make it almost impossible for the English Speaking Caribbean countries to implement the death penalty. Her concern was that instead of “baying for blood”, many politicians in the region should be devising strategies/implementing policies that will promote respect for life and for the dignity of each person. She highlighted the recommendations outlined in the UNDP 2012 report on Human Development and the Shift to Better Citizen Security which states, inter alia, that countries in our region should develop a better balance between legitimate law enforcement and prevention, with a focus on prevention e.g. through youth development, job creation, addressing poverty and social exclusion.

She shared information about the aims and objectives of GCL, stressing that while GCL condemns the rise of violent crime in the region and expresses solidarity and compassion with the victims of crime, Members reject the notion that capital punishment acts as a deterrent or fosters respect for life in our communities; it will not help countries to build safer, more secure communities and will not promote sustainable development.

Renny Cushing shared his personal experience as a victim, having lost his father to murder in 1988, and as an advocate for crime victims and for abolition. He stressed that victims’ families were not taken care of by society effectively and tended to focus on basic revenge instead of worrying about helping families cope with their loss. He explained that “another killing by the state is not going to do anything to bring our loved one back. All it’s going to do is to fill another coffin and create another grieving family”.

Another powerful testimony was delivered by Juan Melendez who described what it has been like to spend 17 years, 8 months and 1 day on death row awaiting capital punishment for a crime he did not commit. Juan’s story also sheds light on the 146 persons who have been exonerated in the USA alone since 1973.

 Juan told the audience how his mother, weeping shortly after his release, told him that even though she had been praying for a miracle that he would be released, she had been saving money during all those years to be able to bring his body home: an ordeal that no mother should have to go through.

After the event a prominent Barrister-at-Law, Attorney-at-Law and Notary Public who attended, wrote to Sir Roberts expressing his thanks for “an excellent discussion.” He said: “As you now know my post graduate studies at Cambridge in Criminology focused on the philosophy surrounding the question of punishment through sentencing.  We were taught by Professor Nigel Walker and Dr David Thomas QC, who encouraged us to have lively debates and in depth study around the question of the death penalty…I am very much against state organized killing, which brings us down to the level of the perpetrators in the taking of human life. Please let me know when similar debates and discussion arise in the future as I am most interested in getting involved.”

GCL Caribbean Speaking tour

GCL Caribbean Speaking tour to mark
the 12th World Day against the Death Penalty

Commemoration of the 12th World Day Against the Death Penalty has already started in the Greater Caribbean region as GCL has embarked on a Speaking Tour to raise awareness of the inhumanity of the death penalty.

GCL will visit 6 Caribbean countries between 4 – 16 October.
Antigua – 4 October
Jamaica – 5 October
Saint- Lucia – 10 October
Grenada – 13 October
Barbados – 14 October
The Bahamas – 16 October

See articles on the first 2 stops of the Tour:

First stop: Antigua and Barbuda, 4 October

Some 70 persons gathered in St John’s on Saturday evening to hear a public lecture on the Death Penalty, with 3 speakers invited by GCL: Leela Ramdeen, GCL Chair; Renny Cushing and Juan Melendez.  A number of government officials attended the event including the Governor General, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The crowd also included many university students and the media was well represented.  The evening was marked by lively discussion, with a crowd that was generally more in favour of capital punishment.

See full article.

From left to right: Anthony Armstrong, Antigua DPP; Renny Cushing; Leela Ramdeen; Juan Melendez; Attorney General Steadroy Benjamin; and Chairman of Human Rights for All, Sir Clare Roberts. (OBSERVER media)

Second stop: Jamaica – 5/6 October

From Antigua, the abolitionist trio headed to Jamaica to speak at a Public Forum in Kingston Sunday afternoon. The audience of about 60 persons comprised mainly lawyers and students.  The debate focused on issues surrounding the use of the death penalty,  its unfair and unequal application,  including questions regarding Mental Health, the theme of the 12th World Day.  On Monday 6 October, the speakers participated in a popular TV Show and 2 Radio programmes.  They also addressed Law Students at the Norman Manley law school.

See full article.

Join us

Map courtesy of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Map courtesy of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

Dear abolitionist friends and colleagues,

It is with pleasure and optimism that we present you with this effort and call to join forces, strategies and human will with the purpose of eradicating the death penalty in the Greater Caribbean.
The Greater Caribbean for Life organisation (GCL) was created on 2 October 2013, during the Second Conference on the Death Penalty within the Greater Caribbean held in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Greater Caribbean for Life aims at:

  • campaigning for and working towards the permanent abolition of the death penalty in the Greater Caribbean;
  • supporting Caribbean abolitionist activists and organizations in this Region; and
  • collaborating with the international abolitionist community.

GCL is an independent, not-for-profit civil society organization, incorporated under the laws of Puerto Rico.

Join GGL now and contribute to eradicating the death penalty in the Greater Caribbean.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 134, Humacao, Puerto Rico 00791,
Tel: 1(787)375-6787
15 Pinewood Avenue, Ridgeview Heights,Tacarigua, Trinidad, W.I.,
Tel: 1(868)299-8945


%d bloggers like this: