Saudi death penalty over murder of Jamal Khashoggi: are the courts always right?

It is a myth from Hollywood – not proven by history – that the Roman Colosseum was bloodied by Christian martyrs being eaten by lions, although it is true that this happened in many amphitheatres of the time, such as in the circus of Nero.

However, it is not a myth that a year ago The Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi, entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, according to the authorities, and was killed there, his body reportedly dismembered. And, as the Saudi tyranny set up a bloody circus to try to calm global public opinion: a court sentenced five people to death for the crime.

The agents involved worked directly for the Saudi crown prince, but neither he nor his close collaborators initially accused of being the intellectual authors of the plan were convicted. The CIA concluded that the crown prince must have authorised the operation.

Agnes Callamard of the United Nations described the trial as the “antithesis of justice”. Amnesty International said it was a “whitewash” and for the Financial Times editorial board the verdicts “carry all the hallmarks of a sham trial”.

Executions not only occur in Saudi Arabia, but also in countries like the US and Japan, where a Chinese man has just been executed, convicted of the horrific murder of a family in June 2003.

But I wonder what we shall say to the innocents previously executed in many countries.

Just knowing with certainty that at some point the courts will “make mistakes” and execute an innocent, is enough to end the death penalty. Especially if we consider that state courts – in all countries – are “influenced” by those who finance them, the politicians who run the executive branch.

Alejandro A. Tagliavini, member, advisory board, Centre on Global Prosperity, Oakland, US

Cooler heads have prevailed, long may they last

The current US-Iran conflict has caught us unprepared. After saying the drums of war are beating more loudly than ever, people find that the thundering sound has just faded into bickering between two cantankerous long-time adversaries.

Even to those who have chosen to believe that they themselves are just bystanders, waves of squabbles are surely less intimidating than a rain of missiles. If they choose to continue to look on the bright side, they would find a soothing scene: it is quite a feat to strike a balance in this precarious situation and both parties do know how to play the game well.

Indeed, saying that there were 80 casualties when there were actually none and starting a speech with an awkward pledge to make sure that the opponent would never get hold of nuclear weapons are, indeed, impressively clever moves.

Let’s hope their wisdom will not wane, at least not in the near future.

Tony Choi, Tseung Kwan O