Introduction

Death Penalty has always been a very controversial issue.Death sentences are

usually handed out to people who have been found guilty of capital

crime.However it is not so easy to consider Death Penalty as an easy way to

punish the guilty.If death penalty is condemn and it does not mean that the guilty

should be released or allowed some sympathy.It would defect the purpose,as it

would be using violence to counter violence.How can we tell if a man/woman

convicted for murder is really guilty?there may be a margin of error (usually an

small amount that is allowed for in case of miscalculation or change of

circumstances).Would it be right to wrongfully accuses someone and execute

him/her’ we should look at the ethical downsides.This has been a very serious

problem for civil rights,groups,religious figures and other people who oppose the

death penalty.

During the Spanish Colonial Rule,the most common method of executions were

shooting by the firing squad (especially for treason/military crimes,usually

reserved for independence fighters) and garotte (a notable case would be the

GAMBURZA).A prominent example is the country’s National Hero ”JOSE

RIZAL”,who was executed by firing squad on the morning of December

30,1896.In 1926,the electric chair was introduced by the United States Colonial

Government.This made the Philippines the only country besides the United States

to employ this method.

We want to make a research on this because there are many differences in the way

people view “Death Penalty”.Some oppose it and some agree with it.There have

been many studies trying to prove or disapprove a point regarding Death

Penalty.Some have regarded Death Penalty as deterent, and some have regarded it

as state sanctioned murder and not civilized.Death Penalty is a highly

controvercial subject.No one knows who’s right or who’s wrong.It’s fifty percent

speculation and fifty percent research.It’s just a lot of thought and beliefs from

people who have contributed to the Death Peanaltytype.Who’s right and who’s

wrong?That is the question.

Death penalty has been an inalienable part of human society and its legal system

for centuries, regarded as a necessary deterrent to dangerous crimes and a way to

liberate the community from dangerous criminals. However, later on this type of

punishment came to be regarded as a crime against humanistic ideals by many,

and its validity in the legal system has been questioned. Until now, the debate

rages on. This resulted in a wide discrepancy of laws on this issue. Some nations

including China, the US, Iran, Belarus, and others preserve the death penalty as an

option, while others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and almost all

European nations have abolished capital punishment. Still others keep the norm in

their legislations, but have de facto suspended execution of criminals sentenced to

capital punishment. This paper will seek to prove that death penalty has to be

preserved as a valid means of prevention serious crimes. It will examine the effect

of death penalty on society and its relevance to the protection of interests of

common citizens.
 Acknowledgement

After an intensive period of 3 or 2 months, today is the day: writing this note of

thanks is the finishing touch on our thesis.Writing this thesis has had a big impact

on us. We would like to reflect on the people who have supported and helped us

so much throughout this period.

First of all, my deepest acknowledgement goes to our Thesis and English Adviser,

Mrs.Luzviminda Ngolab who has generally offered her time, expertise, wisdom,

and continuous encouragement in guiding us and mentoring us step by step

through the whole research process. Without her advice,this thesis would not have

come into being.In addition, we would like to thank her for her valuable

guidance. You definitely provided us with the tools that we needed to choose the

right direction and successfully complete my thesis.

We would also like to thank our parents for their wise counsel and sympathetic

ear. Finally, there are my friends. We were not only able to support each other by

deliberating over our problems and findings, but also happily by talking about

things other than just our papers.

Thank you very much, everyone!

Angel May Almeron

Rochel Ann Dela Cruz
Jhay-Pril Gapingan
 Table of Contents

Chapter

1. The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Background

Statement of the Problem

Hypothesis

Definition of Terms

2. Methodology

3. Summary and Conclusions

Summary

Conclusions

4. Bibliographies
 Background

The history of death penalty is almost as old as the history of mankind.

Various means of capital punishment involved burning, hanging, drowning,

crucifixion, breaking on the will, boiling to death, electrocution, firing

squad, gassing - the list can be continued. The choice of a particular

method in Europe in the Middle Age, for instance, depended on the social

status of the condemned. Painless and respectable ways were reserved

for the aristocracy; and more painful for the common people, such as

hanging or breaking on the wheel. In other cases, the choice of the

method was warranted by the time of crime: witches and heretics had to

be burned at the stake. Capital punishment was envisaged for a broad

array of crimes, “including robbery and theft, even if nobody was

physically harmed in the action” (Wikipedia). The French Revolution

introduced a more humane execution method, the guillotine that cut off the

heads of the condemned.

The first decision to abolish capital punishment was made by the Grand

Duke Leopold II of Habsburg in Granducato di Toscana (Tuscany) on 30

November 1786. The duke cancelled the penalty and ordered to destroy

all the instruments of murder in his nation after being influenced by the

book the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene "On Crimes and

Punishments". The anniversary of the decree is since 2000 celebrated as

a holiday in Tuscany.
In 2004, as reports Amnesty International, 3,797 people in 25 nations

were executed. China accounts for the bulk of these executions - 3,400

cases. Kuwait is the leader in the number of executions per 100,000

residents - 400 compared to 260 in China and 230 in Iran, the runner-up

on the total number, 159 (Wikipedia). In most nations, death penalty is

used to punish criminals for war crimes or serious crimes associated with

physical injury. In Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand) it is used to punish

for drug-related crimes, even though these crimes are mot related to

physical injury.

As part of anti-death penalty movement, this call to repeal this measure

has been upheld by various international organizations. For instance, “the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which among other

things forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and

ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia” (Wikipedia). Some

international conventions such as the Second Optional Protocol to the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Sixth Protocol

to the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted,

although they only bind nations that have ratified them. Organizations like

the European Union demand from new members the abolition of death

penalty as a condition of entry. Thus, there is a significant pressure on

nations to cancel it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are

two prominent organisations fighting against death penalty.

The issues involved in the discussion of death penalty usually focus

around two main parts. First, this punishment is analysed from a purely

utilitarian perspective in an effort to find out whether application of capital

punishment really helps to deter crime and reduce the risk of recidivism,

when criminals commit repeated crimes. The evidence for this is sought in

crime rates in regions and nations where executions are carried out.

Second, supporters or opponents of death penalty need to find out

whether this penalty can be acknowledged on moral grounds, solving the

problem of whether human beings are justified in killing other human

beings.

Although the arguments stated remain basically the same throughout

history of the discussion, evidence can vary, and the findings, although

controversial, can tilt the public opinion to one or the other side. Thus, the

support for death penalty surges in nations where especially outrageous

murders take place. On the contrary, a lower criminal rate reduces the

support.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. We are

against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it

doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a

whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent

people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:

The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 143 wrongly convicted people

on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people

have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in

homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:

Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It

means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll

never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:

-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison

-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a big surprise to many people:

Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than

life in prison. The process is much more complex than for any other kind of
criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply

whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):

Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than

for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a

conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no

more effective in deterring others than life sentences.

Who gets it:

The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for

the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to

people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an

overworked public defender.

Victims:

Like no other punishment, it subjects families of murder victims to a process

which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in

principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death

penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an

appropriate alternative.

The death penalty comes down to retribution or revenge—the only plausible

reasons to support it.

 HYPHOTHESIS

Opponents of death penalty have given a number of arguments to support

their position. In the first place, it is opposed by people on religious

grounds. Representatives of various religious groups claim that only God

can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill

each other. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that

Jews applied death penalty to criminals for selected types of crime. The

only instance in the Christian Scriptures includes punishing by death “for

lying about Church donations: Acts 5:1 to 11 describe how a couple,

Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of real estate” (Religious Tolerance).

The couple was killed for lying about the size of the proceeds from the

sale of a house in an effort to conceal part of their income.

Proceeding to the Christian Scriptures, one finds some evidence that was

said to be indicative of Christ's opposition to death penalty questionable.

Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female sinner (John 8:3 - 8:11)

who was supposed to be stoned to death and saved by Christ saying “He

that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. Jesus was

not in fact censuring the right to kill the woman according to the ancient

law. Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this passage was not

present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an

unknown person (Religious Tolerance). Besides, the passage from

Matthew 5:21-22 is supposed to condemn killing: "Ye have heard that it

was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill

shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is

angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the

judgment..." These words implicate a person who kills out of anger, but is

hardly applicable to cases where a person is murdered through a verdict

of qualified jury.

Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful. To negate

death first of all would mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of

more people than death penalty. The war casualties are often innocent

peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike

recidivist criminals who end up on death row. Yet most Christian states

prepare military doctrines and demonstrate to each other readiness to

employ their military machine to kill people if necessary. Still others are

practicing war if it suits their political goals. How significantly will then

abolition of death penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life?

The same argument applies to the anti-death penalty claim that the legal

system should not be allowed to execute because there is a possibility of

a legal mistake that will result in the death of a wrong person (NCWC). On

these grounds, wars have to be forbidden in the first place since they keep

killing people that are not to blame at all. They either do their best fighting

for their motherland in expectation of a heroic death or just, as mentioned

before, get caught in cross-fire. Thus, any nation that does not exclude a
war should not exclude death penalty that is a much more balanced

mechanism. Besides, the legal system is unfortunately prone to mistakes,

as are all social institutions, but this does not mean that they should not be

used to carry out their functions. Most other penalties like imprisonment

take a heavy toll on human life, yet they are applied to criminals, even if

there is a threat of ruining a person's life by mistake. Besides, returning to

the incident in Alabama in the previous section, a person dying at the

hands of an acknowledged murderer in prison is also a fatal mistake of the

legal system. If the system rightfully recognized the capacity to continue

killing in the criminal, his final victim would have saved his life.

One more argument states that since every person has “an inherent right

to dignity and life”, most nations have abolished death penalty: “civilized

countries don't have it” (NCWC). First, it is still preserved in many nations

including the US that fits into many criteria of a civilized country. Besides,

quite a few nations that have it in their penal codes like Saudi Arabia, Iran,

Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Barbado, Bangladesh enjoy a relatively low crime

rate. This underscores that death penalty adequately serves the main

purpose of the legal system: to protect law-abiding citizens.

 DEFINITION OF TERMS

To understand and clarify the terms used in the study,the following

are hereby defined:

Methodology

The type of research that we used in this study is qualitative research

and quantitative research.

 Conclusion

There are many more issues that can be considered with regard to Death

Penalty. One can evaluate the racist argument, for instance, claiming that

death penalty is more often imposed on Afro-Americans than European

Americans and see how it relates to crime rate in the two groups. Besides,

ethical perspectives on this issue can be diverse and supported by many

different theories. With the arguments presented above, however, it

seems clear that there are many valid reasons in support of death penalty.

On the contrary, anti-death penalty arguments need to be assessed

critically, as, for instance, the religious argument.

Further research into the topic is necessary, with more authoritative

studies on the deterrent effect of death penalty on the criminal rates,

tracing various states in the US as well as evidence from other nations. It

would also be interesting to examine the historical background of nations

that have both capital punishment in their law codes and extremely low

crime rate to see how death penalty affects crime rates. On the more

practical level, it is my deepest belief that currently capital punishment has

to be preserved in order to protect potential victims. Any consideration of

the crime rate cancellation would become viable if the crime rate at least

for murders goes sharply down. At present, however, capital punishment

serves as an important barrier on the way of criminals ready to take

another person's life.

Capital Punishment in the Philippines has a varied history and is

currently suspended as of 2006. Capital punishment was legal after

independence and increased in use under the Ferdinand Marcos regime.

After the fall of Marcos, there was a moratorium on capital punishment

from 1987–1999, followed by a resumption in executions from 1999–2006,

followed by a law ending the practice. The death penalty seems likely to

return to the Philippines; President Rodrigo Duterte, elected in 2016, is a

vocal supporter of resumption of capital punishment.

Filipinos have mixed opinions about the death penalty, with many

opposing it on religious and humanitarian grounds, while advocates see it

as a way of deterring crimes.

Spanish and American periods

A 1901 execution at the Old Bilibid Prison, Manila, Philippines

During Spanish colonial rule, the most common methods of execution

were death by firing squad (especially for treason/military crimes, usually

reserved for independence fighters) and garrotte (a notable case would be

the Gomburza). Death by hanging was another popular method.

A prominent example is the national hero, José Rizal, who was executed

by firing squad on the morning of December 30, 1896, in the park that now

bears his name.[1]

In 1926, the electric chair (Spanish: silla eléctrica; Filipino: silya eléktrika)

was introduced by the United States' colonial Insular Government,[2]

making the Philippines the only other country to employ this method. The

last colonial-era execution took place under Governor-General Theodore

Roosevelt, Jr. in February 1932. There were no executions under Manuel

L. Quezon, the first President of the Commonwealth.[3]

1946-1986

The capital crimes after regaining full sovereignty in July 1946 were

murder, rape and treason. However, no executions took place until April

1950,[4] when Julio Gullien was executed for attempting to assassinate

President Manuel Roxas.[5] Other notable cases includes Marciál "Baby"

Ama, electrocuted at the age of 16 on October 4, 1961, for murders

committed while in prison for lesser charges.[6] Ama notably became the
subject of the popular 1976 film, Bitayin si... Baby Ama! (Execute Baby

Ama!).[7]

Another famous case was that of former powerful Governor of Negros

Occidental Rafael Lacson and 22 of his allies, condemned to die in August

1954 for the murder of a political opponent.[8] Ultimately, Lacson was

never executed.

In total, 51 people were electrocuted up to 1961. Execution numbers

climbed under President Ferdinand Marcos, who was ironically himself

sentenced to death in 1939 for the murder of Julio Nalundasan—the

political rival of his father, Mariano; the young Ferdinand was acquitted on

appeal. A notorious triple execution took place in May 1972, when Jaime

José, Basilio Pineda and Edgardo Aquino were electrocuted for the 1967

abduction and gang-rape of young actress Maggie dela Riva. The state

ordered that the executions be broadcast on national television. [9]

Under the Marcos regime, drug trafficking also became punishable by

death by firing squad, such as the case with Lim Seng, whose execution in

December 1972 was also ordered broadcast on national television. Future

President and then Chief of the Philippine Constabulary Gen. Fidel V.

Ramos was present at the execution.[10]

The electric chair was used until 1976, when execution by firing squad

eventually replaced it as the sole method of execution. Under Marcos' 20-

year authoritarian rule, however, countless more people were summarily

executed, tortured or simply disappeared for opposition to his rule.[neutrality is

disputed]

After Marcos was deposed in 1986, the newly drafted 1987 Constitution

prohibited the death penalty but allowed the Congress to reinstate it

"hereafter" for "heinous crimes"; making the Philippines the first Asian

country to abolish capital punishment.

Reinstatement and moratorium

President Fidel V. Ramos promised during his campaign that he would

support the re-introduction of the death penalty in response to increasing

crime rates. The new law, drafted by Ramos, restored capital punishment

by defining "heinous crimes" as everything from murder to stealing a car.

This law provided the use of the electric chair until the gas chamber

(chosen by the government to replace electrocution) could be installed.

Executions resumed in 1999, starting with Leo Echegaray, who was put to

death by lethal injection under Ramos' successor, Joseph Estrada,

marking the first execution after the reinstatement of the death penalty.

The next execution saw an embarrassing mishap when President Estrada

decided to grant a last-minute reprieve, but failed to get through to the

prison authorities in time to stop the execution. Following on a personal

appeal by his spiritual advisor, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Estrada called a

moratorium in 2000 to honor the bimillenial anniversary of Christ's birth.[11]

Executions were resumed a year later.

Estrada's successor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, was a vocal opponent of

the death penalty and also approved a moratorium, but later permitted

executions and denied pardons.

Second suspension

An old embarkation card (erroneously) warning visitors of the death

penalty for drug trafficking. The caveat has since been removed from

subsequent versions.

On 15 April 2006, the sentences of 1,230 death row inmates were

commuted to life imprisonment, in what Amnesty International believes to

be the "largest ever commutation of death sentences".[12]

Capital punishment was again suspended via Republic Act No. 9346,

which was signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 24 June

2006. The bill followed a vote held in Congress earlier that month which

overwhelmingly supported the abolition of the practice.[13] The penalties of

life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua (detention of indefinite length,

usually for at least 30 years) replaced the death penalty. [14] Critics of

Arroyo's initiative called it a political move meant to placate the Roman

Catholic Church, some sectors of which were increasingly vocal in their

opposition to her rule.

Aftermath

President Arroyo controversially pardoned many prisoners during her

presidency, including a 2009 pardon for all remaining felons convicted for

the 1983 assassination of former Senator and opposition leader Benigno

Aquino, Jr.[15]

Support for reintroduction of capital punishment

During the 2016 election, presidential candidate and frontrunner, Davao

City mayor Rodrigo Duterte, campaigned to restore the death penalty in

the Philippines.[16][17][18] During the "Yes or No" segment of the second

presidential debate on March 20, 2016, Duterte and Senator Grace Poe

were the only candidates who said "Yes" when asked about the

restoration of the death penalty in the country, favoring the decision. [19]

Duterte, who won the election in May 2016, supports restoration of the

death penalty by hanging.[20] It has been reported that he wants capital

punishment for criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire syndicates

and those who commit "heinous crimes" such as rape, robbery or car theft

where the victim is murdered,[20] while Poe has stated that the capital
punishment should apply to criminals convicted of "drugs and multiple

crimes where involved people can no longer be rehabilitated."[21] Duterte

has theatrically vowed "to litter Manila Bay with the bodies of criminals." [22]

In December 2016, the bill to resume capital punishment for certain

"heinous offenses" swiftly passed out of Committee in the House of

Representatives, and passage of the law is expected to happen by

Christmas.[22]

Methods

The Philippines was the only country aside from the United States that

used the electric chair, due to its being introduced during the US colonial

period. Until its first abolition in 1987, the country reverted to using death

by firing squad.

After re-introduction of the death penalty in 1993, the country switched to

lethal injection as its sole method of execution.

The Philippine House of Representatives should reject a proposal to

reinstate the death penalty

Human Rights Watch said today. On November 29, 2016, the Judicial

Reforms Subcommittee approved Congress House Bill No. 1 (Death

Penalty Law), which would reinstate capital punishment for “heinous

crimes,” including murder, piracy, and the trafficking and possession of

illegal drugs. A house vote on the bill is likely before the end of 2016.

Expand

The joint session of the 16th Congress at the Philippine House of

Representatives in Manila in July 2014.

“The Philippine government should acknowledge the death penalty’s

barbarity and reject any moves to reinstate it,” said Phelim Kine, deputy

Asia director. “The failure of the death penalty as a crime deterrent is

globally recognized and the government should maintain the prohibition on

its use.”

In a joint letter drafted by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC),

a network of nongovernmental organizations that focuses on issues

related to drug production, trafficking, and use, the consortium urged all

members of the Philippine House of Representatives and Senate to

uphold the right to life enshrined in the 1987 Philippines Constitution. The

Philippines is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR) and to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR on the

abolishment of the death penalty. The consortium also urged Philippine

lawmakers to ensure proportionate sentencing of drug offenses to protect

the vulnerable, and invest in harm reduction approaches to protect the

health and wellbeing of Filipino people.

The Philippine government abolished the death penalty under article III,

section 19 of the 1987 constitution. President Fidel Ramos reimposed the

death penalty in 1993 as a “crime control” measure, but President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo reinstated abolition in 2006.

Letter to the Philippines Congress on the Death Penalty

The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly

debunked. Most recently, on March 4, 2015, the United Nations assistant

secretary-general for human rights, Ivan Simonovic, stated that there was

“no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even with respect

to murder, an Oxford University analysis concluded that capital

punishment does not deter “murder to a marginally greater extent than

does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life

imprisonment.”

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances

because of its inherent cruelty.

Reinstating the death penalty would violate the Philippines’ international

legal obligations. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR states that

“no one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall
be executed” and that “each State Party shall take all necessary measures

to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.”

Where the death penalty is permitted, human rights law limits the death

penalty to “the most serious crimes,” typically crimes resulting in death or

serious bodily harm. In a March 2010 report, the UN Office on Drugs and

Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically urged

member countries to prohibit use of the death penalty for drug-related

offenses, while urging countries to take an overall “human rights-based

approach to drug and crime control.” In its 2014 annual report, the

International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with monitoring

compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to

abolish the death penalty for drug offenses. The UN Human Rights

Committee and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or

arbitrary executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug

offenses fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime.” In September

2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reaffirmed that

“persons convicted of drug-related offences … should not be subject to

the death penalty.”

“Reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal

problems that Congress House Bill No. 1 seeks to address,” Kine said. “It

will only add to the already horrific death toll that President Rodrigo
Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took office on

June 30.”

House Justice Committee Approves Death Penalty Bill

The bill restoring the death penalty passed a major hurdle in the House of

Representatives with its approval on Wednesday at the committee level,

paving the way for the measure to be taken up on the plenary floor.

With its swift approval, the measure allowing courts to impose death as

punishment for heinous crime — one of President Rodrigo Duterte’s

campaign promises — may be debated and possibly passed on third and

final reading before Christmas.

 House to approve death penalty bill before Christmas break

By a 12-6 vote, with one abstention, the justice committee chaired by

Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali approved the substitute bill

consolidating several similar measures reimposing the capital punishment

for more than 20 heinous offenses, including rape with homicide,

kidnapping for ransom, and arson with death.

This followed a nearly three-hour long debate by lawmakers in favor of or

opposed to the death penalty bill, one of the priority legislative agenda

pushed by Mr. Duterte, along with measures lowering the age of criminal

liability and switching to federalism.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and Dinagat Rep. Kaka Bag-ao articulated

spirited objections against the approval of bill, arguing that there were no

compelling reasons to justify the reimposition of the death penalty bill.

 With killing of drug suspects, is death penalty needed?

But their arguments fell on deaf ears in the face of the majority.

Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso, a former Court of Appeals justice, said it was

important to give courts the option to impose the penalty of death against

the worst and most hardened criminals.

“If the one in front of you is Satan himself, at least give the government the

option to kill the person. That’s Satan already,” he said.

Bag-ao begged to disagree with Veloso, saying most of those who would

end up facing death as punishment for their offenses are ordinary people.
“It’s not Satan who would face the courts, but ordinary people, many of

them among the poor,” she said.

She also cited Philippine Statistics Authority figures showing that the

period when the death penalty was imposed did not indicate any decline in

crime numbers. In fact, she said, the numbers showed there was more

crime during the time capital punishment was in effect.

But Umali, the committee chair, later presented figures submitted by the

Philippine National Police showing an opposite trend where criminality had

started to rise after the death penalty was abolished.

Seeking to put an end to the debate, Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas

noted that the framers of the 1987 Constitution, many of them devout

Christians, had opted to keep the option of capital punishment.

“When they framed the Constitution, if they thought the death penalty was

wrong, they should have abolished it in the first place. But what they did

was set it aside. They said it could be revived if Congress wanted to,” he

said.

He further noted that Mr. Duterte was elected by the Filipino people after

he promised to reimpose the death penalty and to litter Manila Bay with

the bodies of criminals.

Bibliography

North Carolina Weslyan College. Death Penalty Arguments & Internet

Resources. <http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect15.htm>.

Recidivim. < http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm>.

Religious Tolerance. Capital Punishment: The Death Penalty: All Points Of

View. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm>.

Shepherd, Joanna M. Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the

Deterrence of Capital Punishment. Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 2,

pp. 283-322. <http://people.clemson.edu/~jshephe/DPpaper_fin.pdf >.

Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. Is Capital Punishment Morally

Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs. Working Paper 05-06.

<http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131>.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. “Capital punishment”.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment>.

Zimmerman, Paul R. State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of

Murder. Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 163-193.

<http://www.cema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/volumen7/zimmerman.p

df>.