A Position Paper on the Death Penalty in the Philippines

Introduction

Death penalty is a kind of capital punishment which refers to the sentence of death over a person who
has been decided by the government as guilty of committing capital crimes or offences. 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 crimes, amending for that purpose the revised penal laws, as amended, other
special penal laws, and for other purposes. 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 rebelled against them and it was retained during the American period. The Martial Law in 1965-
1986,even though it was abolished during Cory Aquino’s term, it was re- imposed when Ramos stepped
into the presidency. It was also present in Estrada and Arroyo’s term.

This paper present the pro and con of death penalty in the Philippines, even though the death penalty is
important to minimize the persons who have got a very hard crimes, but death penalty violates the
person to live.

Counter Arguments

The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no
more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. In fact some criminologists maintain that the death
penalty has the opposite effect; that is society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this
increases the likelihood of more murder. Society has always used punishment is discourage would be
criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use
the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are
sentence to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing
their own life. Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict
immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more
measured response. The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a
system of capital punishment. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us

to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer.
Encouraging our basest motives for revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of
violence. The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never
endorsed. When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is
restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the
balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be
punishment in kind. Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that
it is proper to take an ‘’eye for an eye’’ and a life. Offenders deserve the worst
 punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. There is no proof that any innocent
person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death
penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning
innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If
improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as
DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason
to abolish the death penalty. Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released
from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. The death penalty alone imposes an
irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has
been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to
death. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their
innocence emerged. For every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who
never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an in tolerate risk of executing the
innocent. Our capital punishment system is unreliable: two thirds of all capital trials contained serious
errors.

My Argument

Death penalty shows justice. There will be justice when we punish the guilty. It shows quality, on T.V I
have seen people being interviewed because one or some of their relatives died. There are crying for
help and wanting justice for the death of their loved ones. I know for sure that justice can only be the
solution for them to be relieved. A serious crime must have serious penalty and that is death. Justice can
dignify a person.