Death Penalty in Violation of Human Right in Tanzania

-
1.0 Introduction 
The death penalty is a human right violation; it denies the most basic human right principle which is right to life. States are entitled to recognize right to life therefore imposing death penalty in their laws is violation of the principle of right to life.
Under Article 3 of the Universal declaration of Human rights it has provided for right to life. This makes death penalty in state parties’ laws a violation of the principle of right to life. As long as the governments can extinguish right to life, it is easy for them to deny access to other rights because other rights might be breached also example the death penalty has been found to breach the prohibition of other rights example prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
The second optional protocol to the international convention on human and people’s rights has the main objective of abolishing the death penalty and it is the only instrument which has provided for abolition of death penalty
The UN General Assembly, the representative body of recognized states, has called for an end to death penalty and human rights organizations agree that its imposition breaches fundamental enshrined human rights norms.
Therefore, the understanding has led to the abolition of death penalty worldwide. Thirty five years ago, only 16 countries had put an end to capital punishments for all crimes while today the number has reached to 104. Moreover, the countries which still have laws in their books, 35 are abolitionist in practice, meaning they have not executed anyone in any 10 years. In 2010, only 23 countries were known to have carried out executions.


2.0 Why death penalty is wrong
The death penalty is incompatible with human rights; this is because it 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. in the case of R v Mbushuu and Domic Mnyaraje and Another,  justice Mwalusanya held that the death punishment was inhuman, cruel and degrading .he went further to say that the imposition of death sentence was not saved by Article 30(2)  of the constitution as it was not a provision which was lawful and in the public interest, the latter finding being based on factors such  as (i) the possibility of erroneous convictions including the fact that the poor defendants did not receive legal representation (ii) sentences of life imprisonment provided protection against violent crimes no less effective than the death sentence and (iii) the mode of execution, the inhuman conditions on death row and delays in executing the sentence and in the end he sentenced them to life imprisonment even though his decisions were quashed by the court of appeal.
Right to life has provided under Article 3 of the Universal declaration of Human rights it has provided for right to life.
The death penalty does not deter crimes effectively; the countries which issue death penalty claim that it makes people to deter from committing crimes. The claim has been discredited and there is no proof that death penalty reduces crimes than imprisonment. The UN General assembly has recently stated that ‘there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty’ (UNGA Resolution 65/206) and that claim of deterrence of crimes by death penalty is being questioned by a continuous number of law enforcement professionals.
The death penalty is discriminatory; most people are sentenced to death most likely because of poverty, political issues, or if you belong to a certain ethnic, religious or racial groups. Also the poor have less access to legal resources needed to defend themselves. Example Mohamed Morsi former president of Egypt has recently been sentenced to death others who are members of the Musim Brotherhood
Also in the case of R v Mbushuu Mwalusanya said that the defendants were poor they did not get legal representatives, it shows that if they had a legal representative their sentence would be different
Often used within skewed justice systems; this are countries like China, Iran and Iraq because they are the top three leading countries in executing mostly after unfair trials. Many death sentences are issued after confessions that have been obtained through torture.
Risks of executing innocent persons; there have been and will always be cases of execution of innocent people no matter how developed the legal system is. Unlike prison sentence, death sentence is irreversible and irreparable. For example since 1973, 150 US  prisoners sent to death row have later been exonerated. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.
Public opinion is not a major stumbling block for abolition. This means that public support for death penalty does not mean that taking away another person’s life is right because this denies a person’s right to life no matter what crime he has committed or who supports the sentence. Example China has stated that ‘each country should decide whether to retain or abolish the death sentence on the basis of its own actual circumstances and aspirations of its people’
Also in the case of R v Mbushuu the court of appeal said that ‘in any event it was for society and not courts of law to decide whether death penalty was a necessary punishment’
’The governments should therefore abolish death penalty without putting much concern on the public opinion





3.0 Conclusion 
As a Christian and a law student, I think death penalty should be abolished, even though the ones sentenced to death have committed more crimes but God only has the right to take someone’s life because he gave it to us and no one else. If God put a label on Cain’s forehead s that he should not be killed after he killed his brother Abel, who are we to execute criminals? Life imprisonment is enough, everyone is entitled to right to life and it should be respected. In Tanzania right to life is provided under Article 14 of the constitution. The responsibility of respecting and protecting some else’s life is put on the society only but in the draft constitution the government is also included therefore it will be easy to challenge the government on death sentences unlike now

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Haki na Wajibu wa Mtoto kisheria kulingana na sheria ya Mtoto ya Mwaka 2009

-
Image
Maana ya Mtoto  Kwa mujibu wa Sheria ya mtoto ya mwaka 2009(The Law of Child Act) na Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Mtoto wa mwaka 1989 (Convention On the Rights of Child) , mtoto ni kila banadamu aliye chini ya umri wa miaka 18 kulingana na kifungu cha 4(1) cha Sheria ya Mtoto Ya mwaka 2009  Sababu za kuwa na ulinzi wa haki za mtoto ni pamoja na;  ➣ Watoto ni binadamu, wana haki sawa;  ➣ Watoto hawana sauti ya kujisemea au hawana uwezo wa kupigania haki zao wenyewe;  ➣ Kuwepo kwa wimbi kubwa la ukiukwaji wa haki za watoto mfano ukatili dhidi ya mtoto, utesaji na ubakaji Sheria ya Mtoto Namba 21 ya Mwaka 2009 inashughulikia haki za watoto Tanzania. Sheria hii inajumuisha mambo mbalimbali ya kukuza, kulinda, na kuhifadhi ustawi wa mtoto; masharti ya unajibishaji wa mtoto aliyezaliwa nje ya ndoa; masuala ya kulea, kuasili na uangalizi. Pia inatoa maelekezo na masharti yanayohusu mtoto anapokuwa katika mgogoro na sheria.  Sheria hii inatumika kutetea masuala yote
Read more

KOSA LA KUGHUSHI NA ADHABU YAKE

-
Image
KOSA LA KUGHUSHI VYARAKA MBALIMBALI Kanuni ya Adhabu kifungu cha 333 kinaeleza nini maana ya kughushi ikiwa ni ni kutengeneza nyaraka ya uwongo kwa nia ya kudanganya au kuhadaa. Kanuni ya Adhabu kifungu cha 335 kinaeleza kuwa. Mtu yeyote anayetengeneza nyaraka ya uwongo ambaye–  (a) anafanya nyaraka ambayo ni ya uwongo au ambayo ana sababu ya kuamini kuwa si ya kweli;  (b) anabadili nyaraka bila ya mamlaka kwa namna ambayo iwapo kubadili huko kungekuwa na mamlaka kungebadili matokeo ya nyaraka hiyo;  (c) anaingiza katika nyaraka hiyo bila ya mamlaka , wakati nyaraka hiyo inaandikwa, jambo ambalo kama lingeruhusiwa lingebadilisha matokeo ya nyaraka hiyo;  (d) anatia sahihi nyaraka –  (i) kwa jina la mtu yeyote bila ya ruhusa ya mtu huyo, liwe jina hilo ni la yule anayetia sahihi hiyo au silo;  (ii) kwa jina la mtu yeyote wa kubuniwa ambaye anadhaniwa kwamba yupo, iwe mtu wa kubuniwa huyo anadhaniwa kwamba ni wa jina sawa na aliyetia sahihi hiyo au sivyo;  (iii) kwa ji
Read more

MAKOSA YASIYO NA DHAMANA(NON BAILABLE OFFENCES)

-
Image
MAKOSA YA JINAI YASIYO NA DHAMANA(NON BAILABLE OFFENCES) sheria ya mwenendo wa makosa ya Jinai Kifungu 148(5)  Afisa polisi msimamizi wa kituo cha polisi au mahakama ambako mtuhumiwa ameletwa au amehudhuria, haitatoa dhamana kwa mtu huyo iwapo:–  (a) mtu huyo anashitakiwa kwa:–  (i) mauaji, uhaini, ujambazi wa kutumia silaha, au unajisi wa mtoto;  (ii) usafirishaji haramu wa madawa ya kulevya kinyume cha Sheria ya Madawa ya Kulevya na Kuzuia Usafirishaji Haramu wa Madawa ya Kulevya, lakini haihusu mtu aliyeshitakiwa kwa kosa la kukutwa na madawa ambayo kwa kuzingatia mazingira yote ambako kosa lilitendeka, haikuwa kwa makusudi ya usafirishaji au kibiashara;  (iii) kosa linalohusisha heroini,kokeini, opiamu iliyotayarishwa opiamu popi (papava setijeramu), majani ya popi, mmea wa koka, majani ya koka,kanibisi sativa au kanibisi resini (Heipu ya India), methakyolani (mandraksi), kata edulisi (khati) au dawa nyingine ya kulevya au kitu cha saikotropiki kilichooreshwa kwenye jed
Read more