pro death penalty in the philippines argumentative essay

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Life without Parole

Retribution

Victims’ Families

Methods of Execution

Medical Professionals’ Participation

Federal Death Penalty

1. Legality

The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment’s use).

Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.

Opponents of the death penalty being legal argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit, and that the penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color.

Read More about This Debate:

Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?

ProCon.org, “International Death Penalty Status,” deathpenalty.procon.org, May 19, 2021 ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021 ProCon.org, “States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Mar. 24, 2021

2. Life without Parole

Life without Parole (also called LWOP) is suggested by some as an alternative punishment for the death penalty.

Proponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that imprisoning someone for the duration of their life is more humane than the death penalty, that LWOP is a more fitting penalty that allows the criminal to think about what they’ve done, and that LWOP reduces the chances of executing an innocent person.

Opponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that LWOP is just an alternate death penalty and parole should always be a consideration even if the prisoner never earns the privilege. While other opponents argue that life without parole is not a harsh enough punishment for murderers and terrorists.

Should Life without Parole Replace the Death Penalty?

ProCon.org, “Should Life without Parole Replace the Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

3. Deterrence

One of the main justifications for maintaining a death penalty is that the punishment may prevent people from committing crimes so as to not risk being sentenced to death.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state that such a harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes state that there is no evidence to support the claim that the penalty is a deterrent.

Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?

ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

4. Retribution

Retribution in this debate is the idea that the death penalty is needed to bring about justice for the victims, the victims’ families, and/or society at large.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that “an eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty is needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not needed as retribution argue that reformative justice is more productive, that innocent people are often killed in the search for retribution, and that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution for Victims and/or Society?

ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution for Victims and/or Society?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

5. Victims’ Families

Whether the death penalty can bring about some sort of closure or solace to the victims’ families after a horrible, life-changing experience has long been debated and used by both proponents and opponents of the death penalty.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that retributive “justice” does not bring closure for anyone and that the death penalty can take years of media-friendly appeals to enact.

Does the Death Penalty Offer Closure or Solace to Victims’ Families?

ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Offer Closure or Solace to Victims’ Families?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

6. Methods of Execution

Because the drugs used for lethal injection have become difficult to obtain, some states are turning to other methods of execution. For example, South Carolina recently enacted legislation to allow for the firing squad and electric chair if lethal injection is not available at the time of the execution.

Proponents of alternate methods of execution argue that the state and federal government have an obligation to carry out the sentence handed down, and that, given the recent botched lethal injection executions, other methods may be more humane.

Opponents of alternate methods of execution argue that we should not be reverting to less humane methods of execution, and that the drug companies’ objection to use of lethal injection drugs should signal a need to abolish the penalty altogether.

Should States Authorize Other Methods of Execution Such as Hanging or the Firing Squad?

ProCon.org, “Should States Authorize Other Methods of Execution Such as Hanging or the Firing Squad?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

7. Innocence

Reports indicate over 150 innocent people have been found not-guilty and exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973.

Proponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that humans are fallible and the justice system is flawed, putting more Black and brown people on death row than are guilty of capital crimes, and that we cannot risk executing one innocent person just to carry about retributive “justice.”

Opponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that the fact that death row inmates have been exonerated proves that the checks and balances to prevent innocent people from being executed are in place and working well, almost eliminating the chance that an innocent person will be executed.

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Because Innocent People May Be Executed?

ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Because Innocent People May Be Executed?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

8. Morality

Both religious and secular debates have continued about whether it is moral for humans to kill one another, even in the name of justice, and whether executing people makes for a moral and just government.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an eye for an eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is an immoral punishment state that humans should not kill other humans, no matter the reasons, because killing is killing.

Is the Death Penalty Immoral?

ProCon.org, “Is the Death Penalty Immoral?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

9. Medical Professionals’ Participation

With the introduction of lethal injection as execution method, states began asking that medical professionals participate in executions to ensure the injections were administered properly and to provide medical care if the execution were botched.

Proponents who argue that medical professionals can participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others ensure that the execution is not “cruel or unusual,” and ensure that the person being executed receives medical care during the execution.

Opponents who argue that medical professionals cannot participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others should keep people alive instead of participate in killing, and that the medicalization of execution leads to a false acceptance of the practice.

Is Participation in Executions Ethical for Medical Professionals?

ProCon.org, “Is Participation in Executions Ethical for Medical Professionals?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

10. Federal Death Penalty

The federal death penalty has only been carried out 16 times since its reinstatement after Furman v. Georgia in 1988: twice in 2001, once in 2003, ten times in 2020, and three times in 2021. Several moratoriums have been put in place by presidents in the interims. Under President Joe Biden, the US Justice Department has enacted a moratorium on the death penalty, reversing President Donald Trump’s policy of carrying out federal executions.

Proponents of keeping the federal death penalty argue that justice must be carried out to deter crime and offer closure to families, and that the federal government has an obligation to enact the sentences handed down by the courts.

Proponents of banning the federal death penalty argue that the United States federal government should set an example for the states with a ban, and that only a ban will prevent the next president from executing the prisoners on death row.

Should the US President Reinstate the Federal Death Penalty?

ProCon.org, “Most Recent Executions in Each US State,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Aug. 26, 2021 ProCon.org, “Should the US President Reinstate the Federal Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

People who view this page may also like:

• States with the Death Penalty and States with Death Penalty Bans
• US Executions by Race, Crime, Method, Age, Gender, State, & Year
• Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• History of the Death Penalty
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums
• The ESPY List: US Executions 1608-2002
• Federal Capital Offenses
• Death Row Inmates
• Critical Thinking Video Series: Thomas Edison Electrocutes Topsy the Elephant, Jan. 4, 1903

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Death Penalty in the Philippines: Evidence on Economics and Efficacy

ASOG Working Paper 21-003

27 Pages Posted: 13 Jan 2021

Imelda Deinla

School of Regulation & Global Governance (RegNet)

Ronald U. Mendoza

Ateneo De Manila University - Ateneo School of Government

Angelika Pizarro

Affiliation not provided to ssrn, ray paolo r. santiago.

Ateneo de Manila University - Ateneo Human Rights Center

Date Written: January 10, 2021

In his 5th State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 27, 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte called on Congress to swiftly pass the bill reinstating the death penalty, specifically for heinous drug-related crimes specified under the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. Pro-death penalty lawmakers and advocates in the country have long argued that the death penalty will deter criminality. However, the literature suggests that there is still no clear and credible empirical evidence to back the argument that the death penalty is a crime deterrent. Furthermore, this paper examined the potential drivers of the growing death penalty support in the Philippines and the possible implications of reinstating the death penalty in the current state of the country’s justice system and economy.

Keywords: death penalty, criminality, selective justice system, human rights

JEL Classification: D63, K14, K38

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

School of Regulation & Global Governance (RegNet) ( email )

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200 Australia

Ronald U. Mendoza (Contact Author)

Ateneo de manila university - ateneo school of government ( email ).

Katipunan Road Loyola Heights Quezon City, 1108 Philippines

Ray Paolo Santiago

Ateneo de manila university - ateneo human rights center ( email ).

20 Rockwell Drive, Ateneo Professional Schools Makati City Philippines

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, corrections & sentencing law & policy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: Public Law - Crime, Criminal Law, & Punishment eJournal

Asian law ejournal, corrections & rehabilitation ejournal, types of offending ejournal, political economy - development: public service delivery ejournal, sociology of crime & deviance ejournal.

• Criminal Law
• Capital Punishment

How We Kill: Notes on the Death Penalty in the Philippines

• University of the Philippines

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Subscribe Now

Why the death penalty is unnecessary, anti-poor, error-prone

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

To address the country’s drug and crime problem, President Duterte has called on Congress to resurrect the death penalty after it was abolished in 2006. 

In response, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice swiftly approved House Bill 1 last December, with plenary debates now ongoing. In the Senate, the death penalty bill is reportedly having a much harder time because of greater opposition from the senators. ( READ: Senate poised to kill death penalty )

Indeed, there’s a great deal of debate surrounding the pros and cons of the death penalty. But in this article we take on the issue by turning to statistics, empirical studies, and a review of the country’s past experience with the death penalty.

All in all, the data suggest that the death penalty will be unnecessary, anti-poor, and error-prone given the current state of our legal and judicial system.

1) Crime rates have fallen even without the death penalty.

Many people justify the return of the death penalty because of its purported ability to quell the rising tide of criminality plaguing the country. The idea is that executing felons for committing heinous crimes will deter future criminals, thus lowering crime rates.

But Figure 1 shows that from 1978 to 2008 there had been a general decline in the incidence of “index crimes”. These are crimes that occur with “sufficient regularity” and have “socioeconomic significance”, including some “heinous” ones like murder and rape.

Crime data are usually laden with many caveats, most notably underreporting. But despite these limitations, Figure 1 suggests at least 3 things.

First, the supposed “rising tide” of criminality is more of a myth than a fact: index crimes have, in fact, been falling steadily since the early 1990s.

Second, even in the years without the death penalty, the index crime rate had plummeted. Hence, the death penalty is not necessary to see a fall in crime rates.

Third, even after a record number of executions in 1999 (when Leo Echegaray and 6 others were put to death by lethal injection), no pronounced drop in index crimes was observed. The incidence of index crimes even rose by 8.8% from 1999 to 2002.

2) Studies abroad could also not find strong evidence the death penalty deters crime.

Many other countries also fail to see compelling evidence the death penalty deters crime.

In the US, for example, the death penalty alone could not explain the great decline in homicide rates observed in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows that the homicide rates in Texas, California, and New York had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the 1990s. This is despite the fact that these 3 states used the death penalty very differently: Whereas Texas executed 447 people over that period, California executed just 13 people, and New York executed no one.

Indeed, the US National Research Council concluded in 2012 that, “research to date…is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”

In Asia, a separate study reached the same conclusion when it compared the homicide rates in Singapore (a country of many executions) and Hong Kong (few executions). More recent research also shows that, instead of imposing harsher punishments, a higher certainty of being caught may be more effective in deterring crime.

3) Previous death sentences fell disproportionately on the poor.

The death penalty, as applied in the Philippines before, was not only unnecessary in reducing crime but also largely anti-poor: poor inmates were more likely to be sentenced to death than rich inmates.

Back in 2004 the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) did a survey of 890 death row inmates. Among other things, FLAG found that 79% of death row inmates did not reach college and 63% were previously employed in blue-collar work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and construction.

Most tellingly, two-thirds of death row inmates had a monthly wage on or below the minimum wage (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, less than 1% of death row inmates earned a monthly wage of more than P50,000.

One main reason behind this disparity is that rich inmates have much more resources to aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g., hiring a battery of lawyers) compared to poor inmates. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the death penalty will only continue to be a vehicle for “selective justice”.

4) Previous death sentences were also error-prone.

Too many Filipinos were also wrongly sentenced to death before. This may be the single most damning argument against the reimposition of the death penalty.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court admitted that a vast majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed the death penalty during the time it was available as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.

Figure 4 shows that of the 907 death convictions that went to the Supreme Court for review, as many as 72% were erroneously decided upon. These cases were returned to lower courts for further proceedings, reduced to life imprisonment, or even reversed to acquittal. By detecting these errors, a total of 651 out of 907 lives were saved from lethal injection.

Unless this alarmingly high rate of “judicial errors” is fixed, bringing back the death penalty will only put more innocent people on death row.

Conclusion: The death penalty is a naïve way of dealing with criminality

The death penalty can be assailed on many grounds, whether moral, philosophical, or legal. But just by focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the death penalty, as used in the past, was largely unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime.

Even assuming for a moment that it was a deterrent, the death penalty tended to discriminate against the poor and was subject to alarmingly high error rates.

It is no wonder that so many countries around the world today have abolished the death penalty rather than retained it. As of 2015, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than many of our politicians will care to admit. Reinstating the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is a patently naïve and simplistic way of going about it. – Rappler.com

JC Punongbayan is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. Kevin Mandrilla is an MA student at the UP Asian Center with a background in human rights advocacy. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliations.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

JC Punongbayan

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

DEATH PENALTY

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere..

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the   crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. • Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. • The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.

Execution Methods

• Beheading • Electrocution • Hanging • Lethal injection • Shooting

WHERE DO MOST EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner  – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least  883  excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still sentence to death and execute juvenile defendants. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 149 executions of child offenders in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many child offenders as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 99 child offenders since 1990.

Executions per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 657 executions in 20 countries in 2018, down by 5% from 2018 (at least 690 executions). This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in at least a decade.

Death sentences per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,307 death sentences in 56 countries in 2019, a slight decrease from the total of 2,531 reported in 2018. At least 26,604 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2019.

HOW MANY DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR?

Death sentences.

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,052 death sentences in 56 countries in 2021, an increase of 39% from the total of 1,477 reported in 2020. At least 28,670 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2021.

Amnesty International recorded at least 579 executions in 18 countries in 2021, up by 20% from 2020 (at least 483 executions). This figure represents the second lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded since at least 2010.

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen. Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 160 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime. Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems. In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory. The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool. The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty doing to abolish the death penalty?

For 40 years, Amnesty has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2019, was released in April 2020.

The organisation’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in the Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia region; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty by the UN General Assembly; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 106 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

In the Philippines

More than a decade ago, the Philippines recognized that the capital punishment is the ultimate violation of the right to life by abolishing the Republic Act 7659, later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which further emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment. Since the start of President Duterte’s term in 2016 however, he has sought to reinstate the death penalty, and almost succeeded when the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill in 2017.

Today, we call on the Philippine Senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Call on our Senators to recognize that the death penalty fails as a deterrent to any form of crime and contributes to a culture that continually devalues life.

Recorded executions skyrocket to highest figure in five years

The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful and ineffective response to drugs, death penalty myths debunked.

• Top Stories
• #ANONGBALITA
• Economy & Trade
• Banking & Finance
• Agri & Mining
• IT & Telecom
• Fightsports
• Sports Plus
• One Championship
• TV & Movies
• Celebrity Profiles
• Music & Concerts
• Digital Media
• Culture & Media
• Health and Home
• Hospitality
• Accessories
• Motoring Plus

Real Estate

• Environment and Sustainability

Early this month, the House Committee on Justice approved a draft law reinstating the death penalty for heinous crimes like drug offenses, treason, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder, infanticide, rape, serious illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, arson, and plunder.

A vocal critic of the death penalty is the Commission on Human Rights, which insists that the Philippines is bound under an international protocol to perpetually abolish the death penalty in order to finally uphold the right to life.  That protocol cited by the CHR is the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which purportedly binds signatory countries to do away with the death penalty.  The protocol was signed in 2006 under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

According to the CHR, the restoration of the death penalty will violate constitutional provisions regarding respect for human rights and the dignity of every person.  The CHR also claims that capital punishment by whatever method constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, does not accord dignity to human beings, and has no place in a civilized society.  In addition, the CHR says that there are no studies which prove that the death penalty deters crime. 

For the CHR, effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice system are the best deterrents against crime.  This proposal is echoed by local Catholic Church leaders.             

 The arguments raised by the CHR sound good, but they are devoid of legal substance.  In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which sustains the CHR’s position.  A look at the pertinent provision of the Constitution will set the pace. 

Section 19, Article III of the Charter states: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.  Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.  Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

It will be readily gleaned from the text of Section 19 that although the imposition of cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment is explicitly prohibited, the same section allows Congress to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes.  This clearly means that it was never the intention of the Constitution to consider the death penalty as a cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment. 

Every freshman law student knows that when a particular act is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, it is impossible for that act to be considered unconstitutional.  Therefore, since the Constitution allows Congress to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, the death penalty cannot be unconstitutional.  It also means that the death penalty cannot be repugnant to any provision in the Constitution.   

Thus, as far as the Constitution is concerned, the death penalty is not a cruel, degrading, or inhuman form of punishment, and the death penalty is not repugnant to any provision of the Constitution.  

This effectively debunks the arguments of the CHR to the effect that the death penalty is an unconstitutional form of punishment, and that it violates provisions of the Constitution regarding human rights and dignity.

As for the argument that the death penalty has no place in a civilized society, suffice it to say that that’s a matter of opinion.  The military establishment imposes the death penalty on erring soldiers.  Does that make the military establishment uncivilized?  Death sentences were carried out during the administrations of past presidents under the 1935 Constitution.  Does that make those administrations uncivilized?  On many occasions in the past, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty imposed by lower courts on certain convicts.  Does that make the justices of the high court uncivilized?  Good grief!

Sure, the Philippines signed that protocol on the abolition of the death penalty, and the Constitution itself states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.  That notwithstanding, it is a basic principle in constitutional law that an international protocol cannot prevail over a specific provision of the Constitution—like Section 19, Article III which allows the imposition of the death penalty.  Moreover, adopting international law as part of Philippine law does not necessarily mean that international law automatically takes precedence over the Constitution. 

The reason for the supremacy of the Constitution over an international protocol is obvious—the Constitution was ratified by the sovereign Filipino people; an international protocol signed by the Philippine government does have the same approval from the electorate.

While there may be no empirical data to show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against crime, there is none to suggest that its abolition has reduced crime.

The proposition that effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice system are the best deterrents against crime is, at best, wishful thinking.  Effective law enforcement only means that criminals will be caught and charged.  On the other hand, an efficient criminal justice system only means crime will not go unpunished.  Both do not necessarily assure that nobody will commit crime. 

Truth to tell, overpopulation contributes to criminality.  A runaway increase in population translates to more unemployed people and, ultimately, to poverty.  Desperation results, and desperation triggers crime because it is very difficult to be law-abiding when one is hungry and no meals are forthcoming.

Because the Philippines has a very serious population problem, the government is promoting a population control program.  Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church is not helping out because it is against contraceptives. 

The Church may not know it but by opposing population control, it tacitly condones criminality.

So much for the opposition to the death penalty. 

• Commission on Human Rights
• death penalty
• House of Representatives
• human rights advocates
• Victor Avecilla

LATEST NEWS

Wesley guo says he wants to surrender—lawyer, guo to arrive in manila by thursday evening, august inflation eased to 3.3%, habagat brings heavy rains across metro manila; la mesa dam at critical level, popular articles, manhunt ends; quiboloy gives up, ‘ultimatum was the key:’ how quiboloy fell under pnp custody, timeline of kojc leader’s surrender, solons issue ultimatum for guo to reveal the truth about pogos.

• Economy & Trade
• Banking & Finance
• Agri & Mining
• IT & Telecom

On the Road

• Monitoring Plus
• Travel Features
• Travel Reels
• Travel Logs
• Entertainment
• TV & Movies
• Music & Concerts
• Culture & Media
• Environment & Sustainability
• Users Agreement

© All Rights Reserved, Newspaper Theme.

• Special Pages

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Death Penalty in the Philippines

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Reintroduce death penalty

Death Penalty in the Philippines. (2017, Feb 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay

"Death Penalty in the Philippines." StudyMoose , 9 Feb 2017, https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay

StudyMoose. (2017). Death Penalty in the Philippines . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay [Accessed: 8 Sep. 2024]

"Death Penalty in the Philippines." StudyMoose, Feb 09, 2017. Accessed September 8, 2024. https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay

"Death Penalty in the Philippines," StudyMoose , 09-Feb-2017. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay. [Accessed: 8-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2017). Death Penalty in the Philippines . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay [Accessed: 8-Sep-2024]

• The Theme Of Death In Because I Could Not Stop For Death And Death Be Not Proud Pages: 4 (1015 words)
• The Murder of Jessica Lundsford and Death Penalty Pages: 5 (1464 words)
• Arguments for the Death Penalty Pages: 5 (1321 words)
• Death Penalty Argumentative Pages: 7 (2015 words)
• Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished? Pages: 7 (1862 words)
• Ethics Of The Death Penalty Philosophy Pages: 7 (2067 words)
• Death Penalty Essay Introduction Pages: 2 (559 words)
• Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty Philosophy Pages: 9 (2520 words)
• Is the death penalty a justified form of punishment Pages: 7 (2023 words)
• How Far Do You Agree with Death Penalty? Pages: 2 (411 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.