HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 212128,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/212128/?format=api",
"text_counter": 293,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, actually, he wanted to inform the rest of the House that I served in that said capacity. I did not deny that I was a magistrate. But, even as a magistrate, you are enjoined to follow the law as it is. Those who are lawyers will confirm that the Positivist School of Law holds that you have no business applying the law as you think it should be, and that you should apply it as it is. Nevertheless, I do not think that, that would water down the position. I think that today, there is no co-relation between some of the penalties that we find in our statute books. We have penalties prescribed for the offence of treason, robbery with violence contrary to Section 296 of the Penal Code and attempted robbery with violence contrary to Section 297(2), as well as the sentence prescribed for the offence of murder. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you look at the victims when they appear in court, it is a very sympathetic situation. But you wonder, even if the offence they committed resulted in the loss of life, would that in, itself, justify the taking away of the other life? Really, in a democratic country, should we also not be thinking of not just bringing this amendment to the Penal Code, but also to Section 71(1) of the Constitution, that there can be no lawful authority upon which somebody's life can be taken away? Why should we have executions? In a number of cases where people have actually been sentenced to death, they are mainly the poor who cannot afford the services of competent legal representation. Indeed, if you look at the Bill that is pending before this House - the Statue Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill - it is now that it is being proposed to remove the necessity of having assessors in murder trials. Those who face murder charges are, at least, given the opportunity of legal representation. But of course, they are not given the very best because the State is not able to get the very best for them. So, you get youths who have just graduated from universities; who may not have the necessary experience on the intricacies of practice and proper application of laws in a trial. Indeed, what we are saying is that those who are given the so-called pauper briefs--- Indeed, they are called pauper! They are poor! Advocates who get pauper briefs - it is little money - are not the people who have the necessary experience at defending cases of serious nature that will result in the loss of life of a person who is appearing before a court. Therefore, in the majority of cases, even where you have allowed confessions to be taken, they are taken in such circumstances that it becomes very difficult for the person who is charged to seriously challenge those confessions! Yet, we know that in most cases, they are actually forced. Courts are actually expected to rely on those confessions. We may make rules that an officer taking a confession shall inform the person that he or she has a right to have his lawyer present when he is making confessions. However, throughout my 18 years on the Bench, I never came across a single case of a suspect who was informed by a police officer; even if not the investigating officer, that he or she has a right to be represented or to keep quiet. The rules are there. They have a right even to have their relatives present as they make confessions. However, I did not come across a single case of them being informed of the same. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, police officers invariably state it that the person understood the caution and elected to make the following confession: \"That actually on this day, we did this thing or the other\". Is it possible that the person that makes the confession to the police July 25, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 41 officers when taken before court denies it? They invariably plead not guilty to those charges. There are laws that an extra-judicial confession, made before a police officer, is admissible and can form the basis of a conviction in such a serious matter as the offence of murder, treason or robbery with violence. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is for this reason that I think in this enlightened age, this country must move in tandem with a majority of the rest of civilised world and abolish the death penalty. With those few remarks, I beg to support."
}