PETALING JAYA – The recent affirmation of the death penalty for Indonesian national Junaidi Bambang has ignited discussions on the limitations faced by death row prisoners and their legal representatives in presenting mitigating evidence, including mental health considerations, according to activists.
Critics argue that the case of Junaidi, who attempted suicide subsequent to the tragic killing of his daughters, highlights a failure to thoroughly investigate the “strong indication” that he may be grappling with an underlying mental health condition. A coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network and Capital Punishment Justice Project, has condemned the lack of scrutiny into this aspect.
The NGOs pointed out a notable deficiency in Malaysian law, emphasizing the inadequacy in identifying and acknowledging mental health conditions that could impact the assessment of an individual’s culpability, particularly for those accused of offenses carrying the death penalty.
On Wednesday, the Federal Court upheld the death sentence imposed on Junaidi Bambang for the 2002 murder of his three daughters, Julaiha, Julaika, and Juriyanti, in their home in Kampung Dusun, Pekan, Pahang.
Despite a plea to reduce the death sentence under the Review of Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Act 2023, the three-judge panel rejected the application, asserting the Federal Court’s temporary jurisdiction.
The coalition of NGOs argued that there is a concerning trend where hearings are swiftly concluded, offering limited opportunities for lawyers to conduct comprehensive mitigation investigations and present necessary detailed mitigating evidence.
Junaidi, who has spent over two decades on death row, was not subjected to discussions on his mental health during the resentencing hearing, despite its relevance to his appeal for the removal of the death sentence, according to the NGOs.
The NGOs cautioned that the failure to fully hear and examine such issues could potentially violate the right to a fair trial, making any resulting execution arbitrary.
Expressing dismay over the conduct of public prosecutors in resentencing hearings for murder cases, the NGOs noted that prosecutors persistently demand the retention of the death penalty, even in cases with clear mitigating factors that should be considered.
The activists called for consistency between government policy and the imposition of the death penalty, urging the development and implementation of clear sentencing guidelines. They stressed the importance of ensuring fairness and legal certainty in the sentencing process, including access to justice and the ability of resentencing applicants to present detailed mitigating evidence in their defense.