A Position Paper on Implementing Death Penalty in the Philippines

By: Kara Jane Doce

Introduction

The Death Penalty which is also known as “Capital Punishment” is a government

sanctioned punishment by death. Death Penalty in the Philippines is stated on the Republic Act
no. 7659 which is an act to impose the death penalty for certain heinous for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, the
death penalty can be traced back during the Pre-Spanish time where Filipinos although
infrequent is already practicing it. The Spanish also imposed it on locals who I rebelled against
them and it was retained during the American Period. Implementing death penalty in the
Philippines should not be legalized because many people will die of the wrong accusation. Death
penalty is at times the only way to ensure justice. In this position paper I will present the pros
and cons of having a death penalty in our country.

II- Counter Argument

The death penalty should occur since it can put a monster of a human away from society
so he/she no longer can have the ability to harm again.

Capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes, if the death penalty was a law, it
would make more people think twice about committing a crime since they would know what
could happen to them.
Even though the counterclaim makes a good point, the claim is correct because the death penalty
is a self contradiction it is inhumane to limit someone of their natural rights.
“It is a strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same
act. “ This shows that how we are to get better as a society if we are just killing the people who
have killed. We can not say it is wrong if we are doing the same thing to them how will the
killers ever know that what they did is bad they will not learn anything from this act.

The death penalty is at times the only way to ensure justice. The individuals on death row
are there for a reason, they committed serious crimes and thus must be executed in order to
ensure the safety of others. These criminals who have committed crimes against their victims
must suffer the consequences of their actions. These consequences must be to put the criminal to
death for the crime or crimes that they have committed. These criminals strike fear into the
average individual because of the sadistic nature of their actions. The average everyday, law
abiding citizen should not be put into a situation in which they should have to suffer from fear of
the potential aggressive acts being performed upon the, by the criminal. Most individuals follow
the rules of this nation, and should have followed the rules of this nation, and should have been
forced into a situation where they should fear the man next to them. One person should not have
to fear the individual next to them is a murder who is going to commit heinous acts upon an
innocent person. These sadistic individuals who commit such distinguishing acts against an
innocent person must be put to death for what they do.
The victim needs to be taken into consideration when examining issues with the death penalty.
There is often much press attention dedicated towards individuals who are on trial for such
unlawful actions, however the victims and their families don’t benefit from this in anyway. It
only serves a constant reminder of the brutality that once occurred to these individuals and their
loved ones.
The death penalty is not about retribution or vengeance, it is about justice. When a severe crime
is committed against a victim, it not only affects them but their family and the community, as
well.

Argument

Death penalty does not allow for reform of the guilty person. The death penalty is
irreversible. It puts an end to any process of healing, of rehabilitation into society, and from this
point of view it means admitting that society has foiled to show solidarity with its most
marginalized. Killing human being means destroying them, not punishing them.

It does not respect the right to life.

The right to life of those who are guilty of crimes should not depend on other people judging
them fit to live. The right to life is an absolute, and the death penalty is one from of contempt for
life. The right to life is an essential principle of Christians and all other believers, for whom it is
a gift from God.

The third argument is unfair in its administration. The racial and economic bias is not a
valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the courts and their unfair of
system of sentencing.

Conclusion

The death penalty should be abolished; we cannot choose who gets to live or who get to
die. Instead need to give knowledge to the ones who have done horrible acts and probably they
can change the view that they had lived with their entire life. Also we cannot always assume
someone is a murderer right away. Innocent people’s mentalities can be change if they are put on
death now. It is a horrible experiences knowing which day they will be killed, also the death
penalty is a useless punishment since you are just putting the person to a deep sleep in the end.