http://www.archdaily.

com/792253/18-useful-research-resources-for-architects-online

Duterte and being human

By: Remmon E. Barbaza
@inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:22 AM July 28th, 2016

Im trying hard to wrap my head around President Dutertes understanding of human

rights (vis--vis, for example, human dignity, law and order), that makes him utter such
statements as I am not afraid of human rights or Human rights should not be used as
a shield or an excuse to destroy our country.
The first paragraph of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it
so well when it affirms that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.
Im aware of criticisms against human rights as a concept (for example, that it is
supposedly a Western concept that cannot be applied to Eastern cultures). Such
criticisms, of course, are to be welcomed. Philosophers know there is nothing that
cannot be subjected to critique, philosophy and philosophers themselves included.
Thus, even such a document as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot
simply be accepted uncritically.
But neither can one simply disregard it. As Ban Ki-moon notes in his foreword: Now
available in more than 360 languages, the Declaration is the most translated document
in the worlda testament to its global nature and reach. It has become a yardstick by
which we measure right and wrong. It provides a foundation for a just and decent future
for all, and has given people everywhere a powerful tool in the fight against oppression,
impunity and affronts to human dignity.

Now, for sure, the difficulty with human rights is that, in the end, they are not
something that can be proven or demonstrated to be true. They do not even belong
merely to the ethical or political realm. Ultimately, they are based on our fundamental
conviction about what it means to be human. There is no proof or evidence that will
render Socrates famous dictum valid, namely, that an unexamined life is not worth
living. The Filipino Jesuit philosopher Roque Ferriols translated the passage into Filipino
as follows: Ang buhay na hindi kinikilatis ay hindi buhay-taoThe unexamined life is
not a human life, which, he said, was closer to the Greek original.
Thus, ultimately, human rights are derived from our conviction about what a human life
is, and what is not. Such a conviction is not merely intellectual. It involves our whole
being. We react not just with our minds, but with every bone and sinew in our bodies.
We say in Filipino, Bumabaliktad ang aking sikmura (My stomach turns), when we
witness a crime so heinous that we simply know it does not belong to being human, that
to do so is to be not human. In a word, inhuman.
Ferriols also used to say, May mga bagay na sadyang hindi ginagawa. There are
things that we simply do not, should not, do. Ancient thinkers understood as much. In
explaining the golden mean, Aristotle said murder is just wrong. One cannot tell a
murderer to moderate his murderous instinct, and suggest, Hey, youve been
murdering an average of 10 people a week. Could you kindly cut it down to five? No,
we simply do not, should not, murder anyone. Every murder, especially the murder of
an innocent and defenseless person, is a murder of one too many.
We have much to learn from Simone Weil, too, she whom TS Eliot considered to be a
rare combination of genius and saint. In The Need for Roots, which she wrote in her
final years (she died at age 34), Weil says:
The notion of obligation comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative
to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to
which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual
who possesses it, but from men who consider themselves as being under a certain
obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation
which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right
which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth much
A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have
obligations.

Ferriols claim about the things we simply ought not to do also therefore means there
are things that we are obliged to do. Am I obliged to be honest to others? Can I cheat
my way to getting a drivers license, for example? When I do so, it will be valid for me to
drive a car, even if in reality I can endanger other peoples lives with my lack of
competence as a driver. Am I obliged to keep other people free from harm while I drive
my car?
Presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring due process, respect for human
dignityare these matters of obligation, or are they merely optional? Does it belong to
being human to uphold these principles, and to feel obliged to defend such principles?
Our answers to such questions will tell us what acts are there that we simply do not or
should not do. Ultimately, they will reveal our convictions (or lack thereof) about what it
means to be human.
In confronting the drug menace in the Philippines, for example, we can go ahead with
our objectives with such stubbornness and determination, and get the results we want,
measurable in terms of numbers and quotas, without sufficient examination, analysis of
and reflection on the problem. But whether we like it or not, we are accountable for our
convictions about what belongs to being human, and what does not.
But do we still stop and ask such questions these days? Do we still consider it essential
to our being human to ask what is worth living and what is not, what is a human life and
what is not? Do we still feel something in our bones and sinews whenever we witness a
terrible harm being done to an innocent person? Or the way their bodies are being
treated, in life as in death?
And if we dont, if we no longer feel anything in our bones and sinews, if our stomach no
longer turns, will it even occur to us at all to ask if we are still human?
Remmon E. Barbaza is with the Department of Philosophy, Ateneo de Manila University.
digthat 6 days ago

People now may not fear the presence of vigilantes killers on their midst thinking they are not the target. But soon they will be. What goes around can
come their way. This administration puts 'new crime waiting to happen' in our
streets - AND THESE ARE NOT THE DRUG ADDICTS it is against with.

Steve 6 days ago

Real Change is Coming Very Soon

With the unlamented passing of Aquinos hypocritical daang matuwid just a
few short days away, we are already seeing a preview of decisiveness and
radical change as drug criminals are falling like flies and a platform of
substantive and transformative reforms are being readied for vital sectors and
industries.
To be sure, the brisk growth over the past ten years (yes, the growth, owing
largely to sound economic fundamentals and the private sectors vigor and
aggressiveness, actually started, not with the Aquino term, but with Arroyos
administration and in spite of her) will continue as the Philippine economy has
shown growing maturity and resiliency in the face of the worlds economic
shudders emanating largely from China and the EU. In fact, various international
research and finance groups have made the projection of the Philippines as one
of the darlings of economic development and a definite go-to place for investors
in the coming decade and a half.
It is only sad that Aquino did not maximize the fullest potential for genuine
reforms when he resorted to hypocrisy by hiring corrupt close friends like DOTC
Secretary Abaya, DA Secretary Alcala and DBM Secretary Abad and even
retaining and protecting them in the face of glaring corruption charges and
irregularities. One can only wonder what developments would have happened if
he had placed leaders of honesty and probity, diligence and responsibility in
those vital departments. Our National Capital Region, from which throbs the vital
energy of our economy, would be less congested and would probably be
enjoying better quality of life and greater worker productivity with much less
traffic woes and a fast and efficient mass transport system. Critical transport
and energy infrastructure would be in place to make the country more attractive
to foreign investors and manufacturing giants currently leaving China.

Mamumukpok 6 days ago

One can only imagine, therefore, if a true and honest technocrat is placed at the
helm of this vital GOCC and it is made to fulfil its original mandate and reach its
true income-generation potential. We can only imagine how far over Php 50
Billion a year would reach in terms of crucial charity and medical assistance to
the poorest of our poor. Why, thats an even Php 300 Billion for pro-poor
assistance in the new administrations six years. In fact, when we really look at
the optimum potential of this institution for generating revenue, various studies
have revealed that it actually runs into hundreds of billions annually if we
harness cutting-edge technology as other countries are doing in the gambling
and gaming entertainment industry.
It is therefore hoped that the Duterte Administration will discontinue the
hypocritical policies of the unlamented outgoing administration and proceed to
dismantle the syndicates that have lorded it over PCSO.
Our agricultural sector could have been rejuvenated and taken off with strong
growth if greater attention had been given to sound and out-of-the-box 21st
century policies instead of Alcalas distraction with import quotas for rice, sugar
and certain agricultural products that have all collectively been the moneymaking operations of cartels-cum-smugglers.
Now that we are bidding good riddance to insensitive Aquino, we can only
rejoice and embrace the promise of real and meaningful change brought in by
the Duterte Administration. Lets all pray and hope for the best.
o

stevie wonderlust 6 days ago

Change is Finally Coming to PCSO

Our poor folk are buoyant these days that change is finally coming to PCSO and
happy days are finally over for the cabal of forty thieves who have raided the
institutions coffers for the past six years. Our indigent sick who have always
looked up to government, specifically PCSO and DSWD for crucial medical and
charity assistance and have, instead, received crumbs from these agencies are
really hoping that President Rody will emplace an honest, diligent and
responsible leadership that will make PCSO realize it fullest potential of
generating the much-needed funds for charity and medical assistance.
The PCSO has been notable through the years of being treated as a crown
jewel of patronage politics and because if this, it has significantly
underperformed in its mandate of providing the crucial charity assistance and
medical help for our poor and disadvantaged masses. Worse, it has missed out
on its great income generation potential as it has repeatedly failed to supplant
the widespread addiction to popular illegal gambling systems like jueteng and
masiao. Combined, Jueteng and masaio are reputed to rake in well over Php 100
Billion annually and nothing of these revenues ever go to public charity and
medical assistance. Instead, substantive parts of these revenues are used as
protection money and line up the pockets of corrupt police officials and
politicians.
o

Cecilia Sy 6 days ago

DUTERTE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, SR. FOR
THEY KILL ANYONE THEY DESPISE.
IN DUTERTE'S CASE, IT IS DRUG ADDICTS WHO ARE NOT EVEN CRIMINALS,
AND SYNDICATES, UNPROVEN GUILTY OF ANY CRIME, OTHER THAN BEING
"TAGGED OR NAMED" AS SUCH !
DUTERTE SHOULD BE HELD ANSWERABLE FOR ORDERING THE
KILLING OF INNOCENT LIVES.

taxj Cecilia Sy 6 days ago

Do you know what you're doing? In one breath, you accuse and judge RD
without the benefit of a trial.

ma.slzr Cecilia Sy 6 days ago

Can you name one suspect killed by the authorities simply because he
was a suspect?

o
o

Aslanie 6 days ago

Dead or alive sa paghahanap sa killer (Erap put 100,000.00 reward for it) --- CHR
pa anu yan may right yung killer na pumatay ng innocent people.
o

o
o

joerizal 6 days ago

Wait til it happens to you. Wait til the drug menace touches your life then talk
about human rights again. It's so easy to romanticize things especially when
you've been living in your shell for life. Easy to shoot from the hips and never
take accountability for what is really happening out there in the streets. Wake up
and get out from whatever rock you've been living under.
o
o

methinks88 joerizal 6 days ago

It does everyone a disservice when we make assumptions that are

clearly not warranted. Not everyone who has suffered the indignities of
this life and the cruelty of others will be full of hate. It is admittedly hard
to do, but those who have shown extraordinary humanity in the face of
so much inhumanity are revered as heroes--Jose Rizal (your Disqus
name!), Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc.

joerizal methinks88 6 days ago

You have a point, but the article is without empathy. That's what I
was saying.

Ramil 6 days ago

Beautiful. Just beautiful. I'm keeping a copy of this article as one of my

collections. At last, somebody is asking the right questions. Any intelligent
response from the Duterte Administration? We are simply wrong, dead wrong, in
the way we are solving the drug problem. For one, we are taking a huge
backward step in our maturity as human beings and as citizens of a world that is
getting flat by the hour. As to where we go from here as a country, I can only
pray that God will be merciful to us.

Pojo Ramil 6 days ago

Please define "maturity" of human beings.

As far as I can see, the world has only progressed materially. We have
been able to make / invent things and travelled far and wide - went to
the moon and got back alive.
Yet, we could not even walk to our neighbors to say "sorry" or make
peace.
Our nature to kill and pull down others have stayed the same.
We are still barbaric. The only difference is that the barbarians right now
are holding mobile phones and sending whatsapp messages.
Maturity? We will never get there by our own volition.
God will plant it in our hearts and mind in the future - not now.

For now, enjoy the world's freak show. It is going to get even worse.

Ramil Pojo 6 days ago

It is sad that you believe we will never become mature by our own
efforts unless God plants it in us. There are many people who do
not believe in God but their decency and goodness can shame the
most devout Christian. On definition of maturity, I would rather
have you define it on your own by reading Lawrence Kohlberg's
Stages of Moral Development and James Fowler's Stages of Faith.
Their ideas might be God's seeds that you are referring to, except
that you seek it, today, because the ideas are already here, now.
Yes, the world is not perfect, and you do look at it with contempt.
Again, that's sad. Because there are many examples of heroism
out there, from the ancient to the present. Perhaps you haven't
heard of Louise Armstrong's song about this wonderful world? And
why focus on "what is" instead on "what could be"? And why look
outside and resent it, where there is not much you can do? Why
not look inside you, your thoughts and feelings and how both
shape you? Look inside you because that is where you have the
most control and can do the most good - for yourself, for others
and for the world. I wish you well.

Pojo Ramil 6 days ago

Wow! Big words - "resent".

You have accused me of so many things. You've completely

missed the whole point.
If you noticed, i asked you to define the "maturity of human
beings" that you said because that's not gonna happen to
address the killings.
You gave me instead more academic theories and yet for
thousands of years, the "theories" did not help at all. we got
worse dont you agree?
So what's the maturity you are referring to again?
Wake up chief. we humans will not "mature" as you hope we
will UNTIL...then.
We humans will...nevermind! just enjoy the show.

Barumbado 6 days ago

Harold Wilson sums up it all - He who rejects change is the architect of decay.
The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.
o
o
o

Reply

Hammer Hammer 6 days ago

Human rights violation does not only refer to extrajudicial killings of suspected
drug pushers/lords. The main and real violators of human rights are corrupt

government officials who are "killing" the poorest of the poor by pocketing govt
funds which should have been used to improve their lives.
Mr President, what is your plan for these corrupt govt officials? It is the hope of
the Filipino people that you can also get rid of these corrupt govt officials, fast,
who are the real menace of our society.
o
o

cracken 6 days ago

Wag na tayong maglokohan alam naman natin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ni
duterte sa sjnabi nya na wag magatago sa human rights ang mga criminal.
Example jan ay yung mga patuloy na gumagawa ng mga krimen dahil
inaasahan nila na pag nahuli sila ay ipagtatanggol sila ng human rights.
o
o

Arp 6 days ago

Please view Monson-Palma's interview with Heydarian and Cornelio a few days
ago. Duterte's viewpoint on human rights is based on the VICTIMS. The universal
view of human rights is based on the rights of the victims AND the criminals.
Heydarian, for instance, points out that for the past THIRTY years, the universal
view of human rights DID NOT WORK for Philippines. Since it doesn't work,
Duterte, in Heydarian's opinion, is trying A DIFFERENT way of thinking.
o
o
o
o

Some_Other 6 days ago

"And if we dont, if we no longer feel anything in our bones and sinews, if our
stomach no longer turns, will it even occur to us at all to ask if we are still
human?"
I had several decades of watching and hearing about victims of brutal crimes.
Now its a breath of fresh air hearing about criminals being subjected to their
own violent ways. So for me its just par for the course, its your turn now to
suffer and I am very much at peace with that.
o
o

Gimel Gimeno 6 days ago

This is about choosing the lesser evil. For Duterte, it is better to kill 10 to save a
100 although 3 or 4 of those 10 might be innocent. it 'justifies' the killing for the
greater good. I don't agree with it but it might be the best solution. Human
rights, animal rights, or whatever rights purports to protect against evil but the
world is mostly grey. Is it better to let a 100 die, so 10 can live? How does your
human rights justify that?
o

Esoteric 6 days ago

This is just an opinion. That is why it is in the "opinion" section.

o
o

Hammer Hammer Esoteric 6 days ago

and everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

thomashook 6 days ago

Not included in Ban Ki Moon's 360 languages is the language of the streets. That
is something criminals and Duterte know a lot about and that is why for the first
time criminals shudder in fear. This is also something you don't know about
growing up in privileged surroundings. You probably know that articles like this
fly above the heads of your kababayans. You just don't have street cred to write
on issues like this.

DurianIsRealFine thomashook 6 days ago

Fighting fire with fire? Put differently, fighting crime with crime. Thats it,
isnt it?

thomashook DurianIsRealFine 6 days ago

Exactly! Those who live by the gun shall die by the gun. Isn't that
just simply - you reap what you sow?

DurianIsRealFine thomashook 5 days ago

The ends justify the means, eh? And who then, will silence
the criminals who took out the criminals?

thomashook DurianIsRealFine 4 days ago

Tell that to the pushers and the drug lords... You do

something illegal, you take the risk of getting killed. After
all, they think "the ends justify the means." :-)

DurianIsRealFine thomashook 2 days ago

So how does an illegal act stop an illegal act? Its a neverending spiral. Note that opposition to an illegal act (extrajudicial killing) does not mean acquiescence to another
illegal act (illegal drugs). Its a strawman argument and is
not intellectually honest.

thomashook DurianIsRealFine 2 days ago

It's not a never ending spiral. There's an event (illegal

drugs) and there's a reaction (ejk). The reaction is because
of the event but not vice versa. So there's no spiralling
effect. :-)

DurianIsRealFine thomashook a day ago

Words such as those may comfort you. But the reality is far
from this. Already you are hearing deaths inflicted by the
police for non-drug related cases. And its just been a month.
I sincerely hope I am proven wrong, but expect it to worsen.
And this ... "reaction" ... is composed of a series of crimes.
Yes, murder. Following your logic, these will be unresolved
and unredressed crimes. All in the name of you and I feeling
safer at night. Will we be proud of ourselves then?

elbarako 6 days ago

So....
---""Presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, ensuring due process, respect
for human dignityare these matters of obligation, or are they merely optional?
Does it belong to being human to uphold these principles, and to feel obliged to
defend such principles?""
---What say you about Gloria? Truly innocent then? Why aren't people shutting
up??? if she was found NOT guilty? (selective human rights nanaman???) puro
OA lang...
---This rahrah about human rights only works in well organized systems.
unfortunately were not, the one thing about Duterte is he can be trusted not to
abuse it.
--Maybe by the time Duterte steps down he can leave a better justice system and
these "human rights" calls can be focused on... but now is not the time. The
system is too broken and is easy to manipulate if you have money.

Nina_R 6 days ago

Wag naman kasi silang lumagay sa mali. I watched the SONA and I appreciated
the totality of Digong's speech. Kung away mong mamatay, lumagay ka sa
tama.

buninay1 7 days ago

Elvi 7 days ago

according to weil, obligation comes before rights. suppose we start with the drug
pusher or drug lord and how he looks at the human rights of his/her victims. his
first obligation is to look at the right to decent life of those people and when he
desecrates those lives, his/her own human rights become subordinate to his
obligation to preserve the life of those people he/she violates. it is only out of
charity that we still observe his rights to live, but by choice, he/she knows deep
within that his right to become human has been lost or at best diminished.
now it is a different matter when we mere suspects of drug crimes are
summarily killed.
o
o

Student 7 days ago

Enlightening piece of writing! I am in agreement of what is said. To look at it

from the point of view of human rights alone, is to miss other factors that is
driving it.
Not that I support of what is happening to those involved in drugs. One aspect
that is not considered is the snail speed of resolution of cases in the judicial
system. When in comes to cases against those that have the means to pay it

could takes years and years or it could be very quick depending upon the
connections. You get the impression that they act with dispatch as it suits them.
The loss of trust in the judiciary had people come to support this quick
resolution which the present government is trying to remedy the people's
frustration and distrust in the government as a whole. Either way the small fry
suffers. However, if there is a good respect for the law that is bolstered by trust
in the judiciary, the extent to which this problem has grown would not have
reached this magnitude and scope, and the killings would not have to take place
at this frequency. Even before Duterte assumed office, the killings had already
started. Which begs the question, what motivated these killings. People are
taking the law in their own hands instead of having them resolved in court.
o

Remmon Barbaza 7 days ago

Thank you to the Philippine Daily Inquirer for giving space for a free and sober
discussion of matters concerning all of us. If I may just point out one correction:
the adverb "not" is missing from the following sentence: "Now, for sure, the
difficulty with human rights is that, in the end, they are something that can be
proven or demonstrated to be true." It should read "...they are *not* something
that can be proven or demonstrated to be true." Best wishes to all.

5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

Execution gurney in death chamber at Huntsville, Texas

AP GraphicsBank

About the Author

Michael Hayworth is the Crisis Response Campaigner with Amnesty International Australia, working to defend the
rights of people in emerging or worsening human rights crises around the world.
@MichaelHayworth

This blog entry does not necessarily represent the position or opinion of Amnesty International Australia.

5 reasons some people think the world

needs the death penalty
Michael Hayworth, 31 March 2016, 01:10AM

Anti-death penalty campaigners can rattle off 25 different reasons why we need to abolish the death penalty:
its cruel, degrading, inhumane, what about families, it's just wrong and world peace. Most of us can do this

so quickly that we cause a small whirlpool in the organic latte that we proudly paid $4.80 for at a garage in
the industrial estates of inner western Sydney.
On this World Day Against the Death Penalty I thought we should try and answer some of the tougher questions
addressing why it is fundamentally important to abolish the death penalty.

Is there any good news?

The anti-death penalty movement has been winning the fight over the last 30 years. When Amnesty International first
pledged to abolish executions in the 70s, only six countries had stopped killing people as a form of punishment; now
over 140 countries have abolished the practice.
The majority of executions happen in just a handful of countries: China, USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq.
Even in those countries were seeing progress, with a number of US States abolishing the practice in the last few
years.
Despite the overwhelming global trend against executions, a number of reasons for the death penalty continue to
come up.
Here is my attempt to respond to them.

1. We need to be tough on crime

Everyone agrees that crime is bad and we need to stop it. This seems sensible and logical in every way, until we ask
the question: do we need the death penalty to be tough on crime? The answer is no, we dont.
The fallacy that crueler punishments deter crime doesnt take into account that there are complex social and
economic factors that drive crime rates, and secondly, that criminals don't often plan on getting caught or think
through all the consequences of their actions.
Simplified statistics don't help either.
Did you know that since Canada stopped executing the murder rate has dropped by 44 per cent? Does this mean that
stopping executions will stop murders? Of course not, but it does demonstrate that the issues that drive and prevent
crime are too complex to fit into a one line statistic or sound-byte.

Whichever way you look at it, killing another human isn't humane, not
even close. And when you get to the details it is simply vengeful and
cruel.
Michael Hayworth
The point here is that preventing crime takes long-term research into the causes, effective police work and
rehabilitation. All of which can happen without the use of the death penalty.

2. They did the crime, they should do the time

Various iterations of this comment came thick and fast when Amnesty began calling for the clemency of Australians
Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, currently on death row in Bali for drug offences. Ironically, with the death
penalty, we are not talking about time, we are talking about the opposite.
Both men acknowledge their crimes and recognise that they must face punishment. But a death sentence deprives
people of the opportunity to reform. Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are great examples of reform, one running
art classes and the other studying to be a pastor. Their reform has come so far that a former governor of Kerobokan
prison has argued they shouldn't be executed.
Many others who languish on death row across the world have acknowledged their crime and reformed. There is no
benefit to the state in killing these people, a senseless deprivation of life.
The immediate counter argument is that the threat of death forces people to reform. Again, the evidence for this
simply isn't conclusive.
Criminal justice systems the world over have had great success of reform without the threat of death, and often due to
programs that focus on offender rehabilitation.

3. The criminal justice system is fair

A vigil for Troy Davis AI

Australia's criminal justice system is largely fair, but that certainly cant be said of many of the countries using the
death penalty. We know that the death penalty is applied overwhelmingly to the working class, ethnic minorities and
other marginalised groups. This happens not because people in these categories are more prone to crime, but
because they have less access to legal resources.
Ask any criminal lawyer whether or not the amount of legal resources available on a particular case makes a
difference and they will give you a deadpan yes. Legal support might not get the verdict is changed, but mitigating
circumstances can be presented, alternate arguments explored and evidence double-checked. All of this makes a
difference to whether a death sentence is handed down.
Many justice systems are stacked against the person charged with the crime. Siti Zainab is an Indonesian national on
death row in Saudi Arabia. Siti was a domestic worker who, after horrific treatment at the hands of her employer,
allegedly killed a member of the household. Domestic workers are often unable to escape their employers treatment
in the Gulf and Siti reportedly suffers from a mental illness.
Regardless of the country, a fair criminal justice system does not mean an infallible one - errors can and do occur.
Troy Davis was executed in Georgia, USA after seven of nine key witnesses changed their testimony, some going so
far as to argue for Troy's innocence.
We can't give back a life once it is taken, and for one I would prefer a cautious approach to even the slightest
possibility of taking an innocent person's life.

4. It is cheaper and more humane to execute people.

Even I was surprised by the facts on this one. A study done in California discovered that it was actually more
expensive to execute a person than to keep them in jail for life. Yes, that's right - the amount of time and money spent
on taking a person's life is greater than keeping them in prison.
For those of us who think there is a humane way to execute, lets reflect on how some executions actually occur.
Often prisoners are woken with no knowledge they are to be killed, taken to a remote location, tied to a post and shot
in the chest. If they don't die, a captain takes a pistol and shoots them in the head. For hangings, people are
sometimes strapped to a steel board to stop them moving as they are wheeled up to a noose.
Governments often keep this information on executions secret, even to the point of loading some of the guns with
blanks so no one definitively knows who in the firing squad fired the death blow.
Whichever way you look at it, killing another human isn't humane, not even close. And when you get to the details it is
simply vengeful and cruel.

5. But what about [insert horrible despot here]: surely they should be
executed?
There are a lot of people who have done horrific, unspeakable things, but modern societies should not join their ranks
by also carrying out a murder. People are judged by their actions, and killing another human being is about as
profound as actions come.
We can't take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where
the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment.
This knowledge give us an opportunity, a chance to ask our neighbours in the region to end this practice. Today,
thousands of Australians will start a movement and light candles at vigils all across the country to end the backslide
towards execution in Asia.
It might sound simple but we shouldn't underestimate the capacity of a group of Australians to change the world.

5 Arguments For And

Against The Death Penalty
FLAMEHORSE

JUNE 1, 2013

The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one

underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of
a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution?
The lister has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the
ethics and legality of capital punishment, especially in the US, and
chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They are not
presented in any meaningful order.

Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one

major source, our parentsand they no doubt took their lead from
their own parents. When your young child emulates what he just
saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is
real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not.
When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of
furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he
remembers never to do it again.
So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals
electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is
meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants
anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants.
This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In
general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and
murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn
put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no

longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by

killing him or her.

5B
For: It is the Ultimate Warning

Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will

be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many
of them are much less inclined to commit murder. Whether or not
would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an
importantand probably impossiblequestion to answer. Murder
still happens very frequently. So some criminals disregard this
warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many

criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately

decide to spare the victims life.
In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against
all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop
at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to
him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no
intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is
much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be
executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and
enter in the first place.

4A
Against: It Does Not Dissuade

If the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the

criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder
others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000
meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that
year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it
doesnt seem to be changing every criminals mind about killing
innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose.
The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade
criminals.

4B
For: It Provides Closure for Victims

There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets

caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the
punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer
has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived
his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the
murder. It may not end with the murderers execution, but the
execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to
think about the ordeala feeling which often fails to arise while the
murderer still lives on.
A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so
for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to
death.

3A
Against: It Is Hypocritical

It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by

committing the very same act. By doing so, were essentially
championing the right to life by taking it from others. Trueas a
whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be
placed in the same category as someone like Ted Bundy. But to
many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should have
been given life without parole. The fact that he murdered at least
thirty peoplefor the mere reason that he enjoyed doing ithas no
bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty, of the declaration
that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to
kill.
If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those
things we should not do, then the justice system should more
adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in
it.

3B
For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear

If you read about Bundys life in prison, waiting nine years for his
execution, you will see that the man exhausted every single legal
point he and his lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare
him execution. He defended himself in prison interviews by
blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable teenage libido,
and for causing him to think of women as objects and not humans.
He attempted to have his death sentence commuted to life without
parole by explaining that it was all pornographys fault, and that had
it never existed, he would have been a good person.
When that didnt work, he pretended to come clean and tell police
where the bodies of unfound victims were, so that their families
could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad
person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadnt

done anything wrong. It was obvious that he feared being put to

death. He did his best to avert it.
This means that he did not fear life in prisonat least not as much
as he feared capital punishment. He had many opportunities to kill
himself in his cell, but he did not. He might have done it a month
before his execution, when all hope for clemency was gonebut he
was afraid of death. How many would-be murderers have turned
away at the last second purely out of fear of the executioners
needle?

2A
Against: It Is Always Cruel

In the end, though, death is always at least a little painful. Perhaps

the only truly peaceful way to go is while asleepbut no one has
ever come back to say that this didnt hurt. If your heart stops while
you sleep, it is certainly possible that your brain will recognize a
problem and wake you up at the very moment when it is too late.
So what we cannot help but let Nature do, we ought not to force on
others for any reason. If we do so, it might be fair to say that we
law-abiding people, who embody the justice system, are guilty of
equal cruelty towards criminals who commit murder. The United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for one, dictates
that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.

In the US, there are five legal methods of execution: lethal injection,
electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gassing. These are all
intended to be as painless as possible, but they all run the risk of
accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was not afraid of death, was
executed via lethal injectionthe most efficient, risk-free method.
Yet his death did not go as planned.
The sodium thiopental entered his bloodstream successfully and put
him to sleep. The pancuronium bromide was then administered
successfully to paralyze his diaphragm. This would cause
asphyxiation if the next chemical, potassium chloride, were not
immediately administered to stop the heart. But the potassium
chloride had congealed in its tube before Gacy was brought into the
room. He was unconscious and unable to breathe for several
minutes while the last drugs tube was changed. His death took
eighteen minutes, instead of the usual seven. And whether or not
he was in great pain is impossible to determine.

2B
For: It Is Not Always Cruel

Its true that cruelty should not be legally toleratedand the five
methods listed above are very efficient in killing the condemned
before he or she is able to feel it. Granted, we are not able to ask
the dead whether or not they felt their necks snap, or the chemicals
burn inside thembut modern American executions very rarely go
awry. It does happen, but the reported accidents since 1976
number about ten nationwide, out of 1,328.
When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the
conductors is strapped securely around the head with the bare
metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. This permits the
electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off
more quickly than the brain can register pain.
Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned
around the second vertebraeinstantly shutting off the brains

ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the
heart to stop within seconds.
The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the
condemned with high-powered rifles. The heart is completely
destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds.
The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned,
because it frequently appeared to cause more pain than was
expected or acceptable. The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which
inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body,
theoretically shutting off the brain like a light switch. But it requires
that the condemned breathe deeply.

1A
Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth

Consider a pedophile who kills an infant girl by raping her. There is

an unwritten code of honor in prisons that virtually requires
inmates to kill such offenders. Probably half of Americas prisoners
were in some way abused as children, and harbor a seething hatred
for those who abuse children. The murdering pedophile is given the
death penalty, but will probably spend ten years beforehand in
prison. He will most likely be housed in solitary confinement for his
own protection, but there are frequently holes in such protection,
and the inmates may find their way to him. And if this happens,
pedophiles are often gang-raped, castrated, beaten to death,
stabbed, and sometimes even beheaded before guardswho may
deliberately ignore the scenecan save them.
Most prisoners consider each other to be in the same predicament,
and treat each other quite well in general. But they are still in
prison, and despair about their lack of freedom. What is life like for
Zacarias Moussaoui, the member of the September 11 hijacking
teams who got caught a month before the attack? A single juror
saved him from death. He has, since 2006, been incarcerated for
twenty-three hours per day in a tiny concrete cell, with one hour of
daily exercise in an empty concrete swimming pool; he has no
access to other inmates, and only rare contact with guards, who say
nothing to him; he can see nothing of the outside world except a
tiny sliver of skyand his will be his life. Capital punishment is an
unnecessary threat.

1B
For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder

The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that

fits the crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. Petty
larceny is not treated with the severity that is meted to grand
theft auto, and the latter, consequently, receives more time in
prison. So if severebut non-lethalviolence toward another is
found deserving of life without parole, then why should
premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment? This
fact might induce a would-be criminal to go ahead and kill the victim
he has already mugged and crippled. Why would it matter, after all?
His sentence could not get any worse.
If murder is the willful deprivation of a victims right to life, then the
justice systems willful deprivation of the criminals right to the
same iseven if overly severea punishment which fits the most
severe crime that can be committed. Without capital punishment, it
could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in

response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the
victim.

FlameHorse is an absolute pacifist who loves animals, but eats burgers. He

will never write a list about Ted Nugent.

President should not be able to order killings without judicial process

I do not believe that the president should have the power to order extrajudicial killings. We
have division of power within our government for a reason, namely to prevent abuses of
power by any one branch. Enabling the president to order killings without judicial process is
a recipe for disaster, as it would essentially allow the president to kill anyone who disagrees.
Report Post
LikeReply

No, That Is Fascism

The president should not have the power to order murder outside the legal system.
American citizens are guaranteed a certain amount of rights that should never be taken
away. The only exception should be in an extreme case of national emergency. Even though,
that power should be carefully exercised and should be guarded against.