Fulgencio, Tristan Adrian C.

2018005541
GED0114 – Sec 2 Ms. Kryztl Bopeep Nunez
Death Penalty

Death Penalty, or the Capital Punishment, is a process where in the person is punishable
by death by the state because of his or her committed crime. In the Philippine Context, the Capital
Punishment has been a very controversial issue throughout the nation’s history. During the Marcos
regime, the use of death penalty has increased most especially the time when the former President
announced his declaration of martial law. The implementation of the capital punishment has the
primary objective which is to instill fear among the people and maintain order. However, the
effects of such implementation only managed to cause more heinous crimes and even chaos
throughout history.
After many years of abolishing the Capital Punishment all over the nation in 2006, the issue
became once again very controversial especially during the 2015 presidential elections. Our
current President Rodrigo Duterte was very influential most especially to the youth and became
known for his “Kamay na Bakal” paradigm. According to him, he will again restore the Capital
Punishment in response and as a solution to the nation’s war on drugs. Numerous debate and
conflicting ideas emerged in relation to the implementation up until today considering that there
are already innocent lives that were lost ever since President Duterte was put into power.
I personally believe that death penalty was never a choice that one should consider as a
solution to the crimes committed by a person. First as an individual who grew up in a devoted
Catholic household, I strongly believe that no person in this world has the authority nor the power
to take another person’s life but God. If a person committed a crime or a sin, he or she will always
be subject to change. In order to prove more of my claims, I would like to make use of Kant’s
Philosophy as my ethical lens in perceiving the morality of killing without considering the
religious influence. According to Kant, previous philosophers have sought morality in the end of
the acts. An act is good as long as it conforms to a concrete or specific end. He believes that true
morality is not heteronymous but autonomous, meaning “a person that acts out of respect for the
law with no other reason than compliance itself, acts according to morality.” In order to objectify
the morality of an act, there must be a universal law that governs all acts. In addition, Kant also
stated that we should act in a way that we always treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in any
other person, as and end rather than the means. Suppose killing a criminal at a specific situation
would save a lot of lives, how should we evaluate the act of killing in that situation? Holding on
to Kant’s philosophy, we should look at the act as an end rather than the means. Meaning if we try
to ask ourselves, what if every person in this world started killing each other at the same time and
served as their way of treating humanity? It is then against the basic objective of ethics which is
to bring us to our own perception of the supreme good and will otherwise only cause as pain and
evil.
In conclusion, I do believe that the implementation of death penalty will never promote
peace and order in a community or in an entire nation, it will only instill fear among the people
and only increase the evil and pain that humanity will have in this world.
Bibliography
Debeljuh, P. (n.d.). Ethics: Learning to Live.

Duterte says he would revive Death Penalty. (2016, June 6). Retrieved from Inquirer.net:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/696527/duterte-says-he-would-revive-death-penalty

McLean, J. (2003, December 21). Philippines restores death penalty. Retrieved from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3337273.stm

Poe defends stand on Death Penalty. (2016, March 21). Retrieved from Philstar.com:
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/21/1565250/poe-defends-stand-death-penalty