The document discusses the debate around re-establishing the death penalty in the Philippines. It provides background on the history of the death penalty in the country since Spanish colonial times. While some argue the death penalty could provide justice for victims' families, others argue it is an inhumane punishment that does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns that an unreliable justice system could wrongly convict innocent people to death. The document concludes that a country should not have the right to kill its citizens, and that the Philippines does not currently have a clean and fair enough justice system to implement the death penalty.
The document discusses the debate around re-establishing the death penalty in the Philippines. It provides background on the history of the death penalty in the country since Spanish colonial times. While some argue the death penalty could provide justice for victims' families, others argue it is an inhumane punishment that does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns that an unreliable justice system could wrongly convict innocent people to death. The document concludes that a country should not have the right to kill its citizens, and that the Philippines does not currently have a clean and fair enough justice system to implement the death penalty.
The document discusses the debate around re-establishing the death penalty in the Philippines. It provides background on the history of the death penalty in the country since Spanish colonial times. While some argue the death penalty could provide justice for victims' families, others argue it is an inhumane punishment that does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns that an unreliable justice system could wrongly convict innocent people to death. The document concludes that a country should not have the right to kill its citizens, and that the Philippines does not currently have a clean and fair enough justice system to implement the death penalty.
The document discusses the debate around re-establishing the death penalty in the Philippines. It provides background on the history of the death penalty in the country since Spanish colonial times. While some argue the death penalty could provide justice for victims' families, others argue it is an inhumane punishment that does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns that an unreliable justice system could wrongly convict innocent people to death. The document concludes that a country should not have the right to kill its citizens, and that the Philippines does not currently have a clean and fair enough justice system to implement the death penalty.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY
The movement to legalize death penalty is currently one of the most contentious topics in the world. Death penalty is the punishment given out to someone who has broken the law or has committed a horrific crime. The administration is hopeful that by doing this, the amount of crimes can be minimized all across nation. The debate over this matter resumed after former President Duterte once more suggested to Congress the reinstatement of the death penalty.
It should be recognized that since the time of the Spaniards, the death penalty has been implemented in our nation. For example in the case, a firing squad executed Dr. Jose Rizal. Burgos, Zamora, and Father Gomez were killed by being garrotted to death. Following the entrance of the Americans, the electric chair gained popularity. The death penalty was upheld until the American grant of freedom in 1946 and until Ferdinand Marcos' rule from 1965 to 1986. And in 1987, a moratorium on the death penalty was enacted by the Cory Aquino administration, which temporarily ended its use. Also, in the Bill of Rights of our 1987 Constitution this is stated: Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. It is clear in our Constitution that the death penalty is abolished but the Congress can bring it back for serious reasons and only in heinous crimes.
Death penalty is anti-poor those who are not privileged enough are the only one that is affected by this system. The death penalty does not serve its purpose. It does not serve its purpose of preventing crimes and to maintain peace and order. If the death penalty were effective, there would be less crime. Also, there is no concrete evidence such as studies or tests that can prove that the imposition of the death penalty actually deters crime and maintains peace and order in the country. Instead of rooting for death penalty, we should root for a better justice system in our country or not just in our country but the whole world, because without a reliable justice system, there will be more victims if the death penalty is implemented. Not everyone who has been sentenced to death is guilty. The reason for the expansion of criminality is caused by other factors such as poverty, unemployment, unequal position in society and other things; not the absence of the death penalty.
Yes, there are those who should be punished for the crimes they committed, from the viewpoint of families and friends who have witnessed a crime result in the loss of a loved one through death or destruction, the reinstatement of the death penalty can be a good solution. In their eyes, doing so will provide them full justice, but let's consider this in a broader sense. Death is not the only way out; we cannot put someone's life in our hands and in the hands of those sitting. Do we want a society where everyone is a murderer? Killing the individual who killed will only make us murderers. And if someone is condemned to death, they will no longer have to endure the tribulations of life in jail. Simply letting them escape the thought of agony while still alive strikes me as harsher than simply dying.
A country that relies in killing its citizens has a weak justice system. That means they can't solve crime without killing. The justice system should not have the right to kill: sentence of death is unethical and morally wrong. The death penalty is only used in countries with a clean and fair justice system and the Philippines is not one of them. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. REFERENCES:
CMA. (2015). Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines 1987. CJAD.
