Death penalty in a pre-dominantly Catholic
society will always be a very controversial issue.
Many people cannot accept that the state can
end the life of a criminal rather than reform him.
But there are also the victims – or their
families – of heinous crimes who will
accept nothing less than death for the criminal.
There are two executions scheduled to take
place in the next few months. And as always,
the question of the death penalty law has come
up. As citizens, we are entitled to support or
oppose a law – but in the proper forum.
Those who are opposed to the death penalty
cannot stop the executions from taking place,
but they can ask Congress to repeal the law to
prevent future execuations.
Former DILG Secretary Alfredo Lim: We are
for it simply because there is an existing law
imposing the death penalty on certain heinous
crimes. Since the law exists, it has to be
enforced. If we change policies, we have to
repeal the law. Let Congress suspend the
operation of the law. What’s happening
now is that every time there is a scheduled
imposition of death penalty through lethal
injection, maraming nagrereklamo. What are
these laws for, if they are not going to be
imposed? Duralex sed lex– the law might
be harsh but that’s the law. We cannot do
anything about it except to amend the law.
Those who oppose it are attacking the wrong
person, as chief executive, the President has to
implement the law.
Bayan Muna Representative Crispin
Beltran: I don’t think that in its current
state the system of justice in the country is fit to
carry out the death penalty. There are too many
flaws in the justice system, and the balance is
often tipped in favor of the rich and the
influential. The poor, being unable to pay for the
services of good lawyers, are often left at the
mercy of unscrupulous judges or to the
weaknesses of the system itself. In many cases,
the poor are convicted because they do not
have the resources or the means by which they
can defend themselves. They’re already
victims of social injustice and inequality (which is
why poor people are forced to commit crimes in
the first place), and the death penalty is another
law that violates their human rights.
Carina Agarao, national president, Crusade
Against Violence: First of all, CAV is not
interested in people who commit the crime. We
are after the brains of the criminal syndicates
and these people are not poor – they are
rich and very well-connected. We have solved a
lot of crimes because of the death penalty. You
see, the poor people who committed the crimes
do it solely for the money. When our judges
started handing down the death sentence, a lot
of these criminals called our office to signify their
intention to testify against the mastermind.
They’re scared of dying. According to
them, giving up their life was never part of the
deal. In life imprisonment, they are paid to keep
their silence – they have a monthly
allowance while in jail, their wives are given a
job and their children are sent to school. Aside
from this, they are promised that they will stay in
prison no longer than six years. With the death
penalty, there is no way they’ll cover up
for anybody. I urge the Church to focus its
efforts on those who commit light offenses
because they are released after a short period of
incarceration. It is these people that we must
prepare for reintegration to society.
***
Teresita Ang See, spokesperson, Citizens
Action Against Crime: The Citizens Action
Against Crime has not allowed interviews about
the death penalty because the group is divided
on the issue. Some are against death penalty,
especially those who know how weak the
criminal justice system is – innocent
people can get convicted while the guilty can get
off easily. Some are in favor, especially when it
involves kidnapping cases and we know a
hundred percent that the culprits are guilty.
Former Justice Manuel Pamaran: I am for it.
The issue is whether the execution of criminals
is an effective deterrent in the proliferation of
heinous crimes. In other words, will those with
similar tendencies to commit heinous crimes be
reformed? The death penalty will help stop
people from performing vigilante justice because
the state is doing its job. It shouldn’t be
political. Then Texas Governor George Bush, a
few days before his election as president, was
asked to pardon a death convict to which he
said no. The execution pushed through and still
he was elected as President.
Rosanna Fores, councilor, Barangay
Forbes: I’m against it, because death is
something that is left to God to decide. In the US
many states have realized that it is not a
deterrent to crime. I also believe that people can
change and to take away this chance is not
right. The Old Testament says "an eye for an
eye" but Jesus teaches us to forgive and to have
mercy. The death penalty leaves no room for
forgiveness and mercy.
Ces Orea Drilon, TV host: I am against the
imposition of the death penalty in our country
because of our flawed justice system. It is a
system that favors the moneyed and powerful,
and where the poor and downtrodden have no
voice.
Senator Ping Lacson: I’m in favor of the
imposition of death penalty. When Echegaray
was given lethal injection, the PNP was
swarmed with rape victims reporting crimes
because they were encouraged to speak out. I
believe it is still a good deterrent against crime.
1st District Leyte Rep. Ted Failon: Death
penalty has not been proven to be a deterrent to
crime. Only those who can’t afford
expensive litigation fees are bound to face it. If a
person has committed a crime, life imprisonment
is more than enough punishment for him to
suffer and to transform him into a better person.
After all, God has His way of retribution. The
death penalty must be abolished!
Muntinlupa Rep. Raffy Biazon: I’m for
upholding the death penalty law. I feel this is one
way we can give the victims’ families a
sense of justice. As long as the perpetuators of
heinous crimes can get away from jail, either by
pardon or by escaping, the victims’
families will always feel shortchanged.
The law was passed in 1995 so let us give it a
chance to take effect. The anti-poor stand is not
a sufficient ground and is based on the corrupt
justice system, not on the law. Let us then find a
way to take corruption out of the system.
Senator Robert Z. Barbers: I am in favor of the
death penalty as I firmly believe that it is an
effective deterrent to the commission of crime.
However, the death penalty law has not been
fully given the chance to prove its effectiveness.
If criminals convicted of heinous crimes are
executed at least once or twice every month, a
very strong message will be sent that the
government is serious in its drive to rid the
country of criminal elements.
Senator Kiko Pangilinan: I’m against
it. It isn’t a deterrent to crime. Also, why is
it cruel and inhuman to cut off the hand as
punishment but it isn’t when one is put to
death? If we are interested in crime prevention,
we should focus on punishment being meted out
to criminals –whether rich or poor
*The idea of putting another human to
death is hard to completely fathom. The
physical mechanics involved in the act of
execution are easy to grasp, but the
emotions involved in carrying out a death
sentence on another person, regardless
of how much they deserve it, is beyond
my own understanding. However, this act
is sometimes necessary and it is our
responsibility as a society to see that it is
done. Opponents of capital punishment
have basically four arguments.
The first is that there is a possibility of
error. However, the chance that there
might be an error is separate from the
issue of whether the death penalty can be
justified or not. If an error does occur, and
an innocent person is executed, then the
problem lies in the court system, not in the
death penalty. Furthermore, most
activities in our world, in which humans
are involved, possess a possibility of
injury or death. Construction, sports,
driving, and air travel all offer the
possibility of accidental death even
though the highest levels of precautions
are taken. These activities continue to
take place, and continue to occasionally
take human lives, because we have all
decided, as a society, that the advantages
outweigh the unintended loss. We have
also decided that the advantages of
having dangerous murderers removed
from our society outweigh the losses of
the offender.
The second argument against capital
punishment is that it is unfair in its
administration. Statistics show that the
poor and minorities are more
likely to receive the death
penalty. Once again, this is a
separate issue. It cant be
disputed sadly, the rich are more
likely to get off with a lesser
sentence, and this bias is wrong.
However, this is yet another
problem of our current court
system. The racial and economic
bias is not a valid argument
against the death penalty. It is an
argument against the courts and
their unfair system of sentencing.
The third argument is actually a rebuttal to
a claim made by some supporters of the
death penalty. The claim is that the threat
of capital punishment reduces violent
crimes. Opponents of the death penalty
do not agree and have a valid argument
when they say, The claims that capital
punishment reduces violent crime is
inconclusive and certainly not proven.
The fourth argument is that the length of
stay on death row, with its endless
appeals, delays, technicalities, and
retrials, keep a person waiting for death
for years on end. It is both cruel and
costly. This is the least credible argument
against capital punishment. The main
cause of such inefficiencies is the appeals
process, which allows capital cases to
bounce back and forth between state and
federal courts for years on end. If
supporting a death row inmate for the rest
their life costs less than putting them to
death, and ending their financial burden
on society, then the problem lies in the
court system, not in the death penalty. As
for the additional argument, that making a
prisoner wait for years to be executed is
cruel, then would not waiting for death in
prison for the rest of your life be just as
cruel, as in the case of life imprisonment
without parole.
Many Americans will tell you why they are
in favor of the death penalty. It is what
they deserve. It prevents them from ever
murdering again. It removes the burden
from taxpayers. We all live in a society
with the same basic rights and
guarantees. We have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with
equal opportunities. This is the basis for
our society. It is the foundation on which
everything else is built upon. When
someone willfully and flagrantly attacks
this foundation by murdering another,
robbing them of all they are, and all they
will ever be, then that person can no
longer be a part of this society. The only
method that completely separates cold
blooded murderers from our society is the
death penalty.
As the 20th century comes to a close, it is
evident that our justice system is in need
of reform. This reform will shape the
future of our country, and we cannot jump
to quick solutions such as the elimination
of the death penalty. As of now, the
majority of American supports the death
penalty as an effective solution of
punishment.
An eye for an eye, is what some
Americans would say concerning the
death penalty. Supporters of the death
penalty ask the question, Why should I,
an honest hardworking taxpayer, have to
pay to support a murderer for the rest of
their natural life? Why not execute them
and save society the cost of their keep?
Many Americans believe that the death
penalty is wrong. However, it seems
obvious to some Americans that the death
penalty is a just and proper way to handle
convicted murderers.