craig aquino,
President Duterte wants capital punishment reinstated to deter people from committing crimes. Citing a news report, the president said in Filipino, “When [death penalty] was abolished, there was an increase of 3000% (heinous crimes). And they say it’s not a deterrent?”
Capital punishment was first ‘abolished’ in the Philippines by the 1987 Constitution. It was then reinstated by President Fidel Ramos with RA 7659, citing an increased criminality in the Philippines. It was effective for thirteen years until President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed RA 9346 in 2004, citing a “high moral impetus dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment.”
Currently, House Bill 4727 or the Death Penalty Bill is being debated in the House of Representatives. Twenty-one crimes were originally listed as punishable by death but plunder was removed. The Church and human rights advocates have expressed their opposition to the bill.
In its current state, the Philippines should not have a law permitting capital punishment. It would be immoral, unethical, and unjust for such to come into being. The Philippines is plagued by corruption and is run by those who do not care about the people. Why should they be trusted to wield power over life and death?
Proponents argue that this will impose fear upon would-be felons and criminals. This may seem logical, as people generally fear death above all, thus they would think twice before committing crimes. However no studies have found conclusively that capital punishment reduces crime rates within an area.
The 21 ‘heinous’ crimes for which capital punishment will be allowed seem to be ill-thought of. What basis was used in choosing which crimes should be punishable by death? Is the possession of 10 grams of opium or marijuana resin something whose punishment should be equal to infanticide and rape? It is unfair to give a person using, or even just possessing minor drugs harming no-one but oneself the same sentence as those who committed murder, or theft at the scale of plunder.
It is a heavy criminal punishment placed on drug addiction, a disease treatable with proper support. The mentally ill who do not have the sufficient presence of mind can also commit crimes punishable by death. An incompetent court may sentence them to death when medical aid would be more humane.
There is, however, a benefit to capital punishment. Resources used to keep prisoners on life sentence alive and healthy could be used for better projects, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It is well-known that corruption abounds in the government, though. These resources will more likely be reallocated not into public services, but into lining the pockets of corrupt officials.
Additionally, the justice system is flawed. In a 2004 decision, the Supreme Court noted that “the cases where the judgement of death has either been modified or vacated consisted of an astounding 71.77% of the total death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court.”
Had no intervention occurred, 651 people would have been wrongfully killed, out of the 907 sentenced. Proponents may argue that these cases were stopped back then, and future cases will be likewise stopped, but the cases cited in the statistic happened over a span of eleven years. Duterte intends “five to six” executions daily. Would the Supreme Court be able to handle a workload this large, not mentioning other cases it needs to oversee?
A 2004 Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) report also said that 73.1% of death row inmates earned P10,000 or less, with the majority earning below minimum wage. Is the higher amount of poor death row inmates because the poor commit more heinous crimes, or because they are less able to pay for their defense?
Allowing capital punishment to be reinstated, therefore, is nothing but codifying extra-judicial killings into law – turning the unjust and unlawful into the unjust and lawful. It is giving the ability to take the lives of the weak to those with power.
Proponents of this, like the president, cannot see beyond their own noses. They are so caught up in their fantasies of saving the nation with an iron fist that they fail to see the repercussions or obstacles.
Before such a drastic measure is imposed, it must first be made sure that it will be done in a way that minimizes the number of innocents harmed and that its application will truly help solve crime. Will countless deaths lead to peace and reduced crime rates, or more suffering as corruption is given a mightier sword to wield against the people?
Should we immediately go for the most drastic measure against crime, when we have not attempted a less ruthless, and more humane way to solve it? Should we combat crime by brute force, ignoring and letting fester the social ills which force people into it? What is the due process of the law when those upholding it act against the common man?
If Duterte and other proponents of capital punishment succeed in their wish, no problems will be solved, at the cost of lives – not just human lives, but Filipino lives. //by Craig Aquino
Opinion (Submission): Sentencing Death Penalty
 |
| Photo Source: Jem Torrecampo |
President Duterte wants capital punishment reinstated to deter people from committing crimes. Citing a news report, the president said in Filipino, “When [death penalty] was abolished, there was an increase of 3000% (heinous crimes). And they say it’s not a deterrent?”
Capital punishment was first ‘abolished’ in the Philippines by the 1987 Constitution. It was then reinstated by President Fidel Ramos with RA 7659, citing an increased criminality in the Philippines. It was effective for thirteen years until President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed RA 9346 in 2004, citing a “high moral impetus dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment.”
Currently, House Bill 4727 or the Death Penalty Bill is being debated in the House of Representatives. Twenty-one crimes were originally listed as punishable by death but plunder was removed. The Church and human rights advocates have expressed their opposition to the bill.
In its current state, the Philippines should not have a law permitting capital punishment. It would be immoral, unethical, and unjust for such to come into being. The Philippines is plagued by corruption and is run by those who do not care about the people. Why should they be trusted to wield power over life and death?
Proponents argue that this will impose fear upon would-be felons and criminals. This may seem logical, as people generally fear death above all, thus they would think twice before committing crimes. However no studies have found conclusively that capital punishment reduces crime rates within an area.
The 21 ‘heinous’ crimes for which capital punishment will be allowed seem to be ill-thought of. What basis was used in choosing which crimes should be punishable by death? Is the possession of 10 grams of opium or marijuana resin something whose punishment should be equal to infanticide and rape? It is unfair to give a person using, or even just possessing minor drugs harming no-one but oneself the same sentence as those who committed murder, or theft at the scale of plunder.
It is a heavy criminal punishment placed on drug addiction, a disease treatable with proper support. The mentally ill who do not have the sufficient presence of mind can also commit crimes punishable by death. An incompetent court may sentence them to death when medical aid would be more humane.
There is, however, a benefit to capital punishment. Resources used to keep prisoners on life sentence alive and healthy could be used for better projects, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It is well-known that corruption abounds in the government, though. These resources will more likely be reallocated not into public services, but into lining the pockets of corrupt officials.
Additionally, the justice system is flawed. In a 2004 decision, the Supreme Court noted that “the cases where the judgement of death has either been modified or vacated consisted of an astounding 71.77% of the total death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court.”
Had no intervention occurred, 651 people would have been wrongfully killed, out of the 907 sentenced. Proponents may argue that these cases were stopped back then, and future cases will be likewise stopped, but the cases cited in the statistic happened over a span of eleven years. Duterte intends “five to six” executions daily. Would the Supreme Court be able to handle a workload this large, not mentioning other cases it needs to oversee?
A 2004 Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) report also said that 73.1% of death row inmates earned P10,000 or less, with the majority earning below minimum wage. Is the higher amount of poor death row inmates because the poor commit more heinous crimes, or because they are less able to pay for their defense?
Allowing capital punishment to be reinstated, therefore, is nothing but codifying extra-judicial killings into law – turning the unjust and unlawful into the unjust and lawful. It is giving the ability to take the lives of the weak to those with power.
Proponents of this, like the president, cannot see beyond their own noses. They are so caught up in their fantasies of saving the nation with an iron fist that they fail to see the repercussions or obstacles.
Before such a drastic measure is imposed, it must first be made sure that it will be done in a way that minimizes the number of innocents harmed and that its application will truly help solve crime. Will countless deaths lead to peace and reduced crime rates, or more suffering as corruption is given a mightier sword to wield against the people?
Should we immediately go for the most drastic measure against crime, when we have not attempted a less ruthless, and more humane way to solve it? Should we combat crime by brute force, ignoring and letting fester the social ills which force people into it? What is the due process of the law when those upholding it act against the common man?
If Duterte and other proponents of capital punishment succeed in their wish, no problems will be solved, at the cost of lives – not just human lives, but Filipino lives. //by Craig Aquino
0 comments: