Death Penalty Final Output

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 63 | Comments: 0 | Views: 526
of 26
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

DEATH PENALTY “A study in its affectivity and applicability”

Members: Richer Deveraturda Joan Risel Abangan Kay Beverly Go Colleen Rose Guantero Jamica Claire Quibod Date: October 10, 2012

I.

INTRODUCTION

Death Penalty or Capital Punishment has been around for a long time. It has been subject of various controversies and debates among the masses and Congress. Our group has decided on the Death Penalty as a topic for our research. The topic is plagued with many issues concerning its morality, effectiveness, and importance on society. Because of the many conflicting ideas, we wonder if there could be a middle ground wherein both sides would be satisfied with the outcome. Another pressing issue for death penalty is the definition of heinous crimes. There has always been some confusion on what should be considered as heinous. Is there a standard or do we remain subjective? In line with those issues we hope to achieve the following objectives:

a. Whether or not death penalty deters criminals from committing crimes b. Whether or not it helps the families of the victims achieve justice c. Whether or not it is suitable for the framework of our society and d. Whether or not there is a need for death penalty in the Philippines e. And if there is what crimes would be punished

Why Death Penalty? We chose Death Penalty because of the increasing amount of heinous crimes being committed every day and the lack of proper punishment for it. We see it on the news all the time like the Cabuyao massacre where 10 people were killed in cold blood after a robbery or the car nap victim’s corpses burned after they were killed. We endeavour to know if there is a solution and whether or not it can be death penalty. The Death Penalty has a long history in our country. It was once an integral part of our justice system before being abolished in recent statutes. Below is the time line of the Death Penalty in the Philippines.

A timeline of death penalty in the Philippines

Spanish Period (1521-1898)

 

Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europe’s penal system, including executions. Capital punishment during the early Spanish Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrotte, hanging, shooting, stabbing and others.

  

Capital punishment was enshrined in the 1848 Spanish Codigo Penal and was only imposed on locals who challenged the established authority of the colonizers. Between 1840-1857, recorded death sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions. Filipinos who were meted the death penalty include Magat Salamat (1587); the native clergies Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were garrotted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30, 1896. All of them are now enshrined as heroes.

American Period (1898-1934)   The American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Codigo Penal of 1848, retain the death penalty.

The Codigo Penal was revised in 1932. Treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses and warranted the death penalty.



The Sedition Law (1901); Brigandage Act (1902); Reconcentration Act (1903); and Flag Law (1907) were enacted to sanction the use of force, including death, against all nationalist Filipinos.

 

Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die for leading a resistance group. He was sentenced to die by public hanging. The capital punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country, to suppress any resistance to American authority.

Japanese Occupation (1941-1945)



There are no recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty during this period simply because extrajudicial executions were widely practised as part of the pacification of the country.

Post-World War II   Espionage is added to the list of capital offenses. The Anti-Subversion Law called for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any captured communist leader.  For the period of 1946-1965, 35 people were executed for offenses that the Supreme Court labeled as “crimes of senseless depravity or extreme criminal perversity.”

The Marcos Years (1965-1986)   “Deterrence” became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. The number of capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death through laws and decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms, arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses, unlawful possession of firearms, illegal fishing and cattle rustling.  Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite prohibitions against public executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public.  Nineteen executions took place during the Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were executed during Martial Law.   Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm in 1977. The last judicial execution under the Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed by electrocution.



Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to quell rebellion and social unrest.

President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992)   The Death Penalty was “abolished” under the 1987 Constitution. The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.   All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA.

President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998)  A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise.  The Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 in December 1993 to address the rising criminality and incidence of heinous crimes.   The Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death; 25 of these are death mandatory while 21 are death eligible. Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection.

President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001)  Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other executions for various heinous crimes.



In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from 71,527 crimes in the previous year).



Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-present)   Arroyo publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions. Due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the FilipinoChinese community, she announced that she would resume executions “to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.”    Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003. Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen the Lara-Licayan case. Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium.  With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible.

I.

RESEARCH PROPER

Statutory Laws a. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Art III 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. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua” b. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, is of worldwide scope. It provides for the total abolition of the death penalty but allows states parties to retain the death penalty in time of war if they make a reservation to that effect at the time of ratifying or acceding to the Protocol. Any state which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can become a party to the Protocol. c. R.A. 7659 The definition or description of heinous crimes is found in the second whereas clause of the preamble of R.A. No. 7659, which reads: "x x x the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." The Supreme Court found the foregoing definition or description to be a sufficient criterion of what is to be considered a heinous crime. This criterion is deliberately undetailed as to the circumstances of the victim, the accused, place, time, the manner of commission of crime, its proximate consequences and effects on the victim as well as on society, to afford the sentencing authority sufficient leeway to exercise his discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty in cases where R.A. No. 7659 imposes not a mandatory penalty of death but the more flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. There were two types of crimes under R.A. No. 7659: (1) crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death; and (2) crimes penalized by mandatory capital punishment upon the attendance of certain specified qualifying circumstances . It is specifically against the capital crimes, for which the mandatory penalty of death is imposed, that the test of heinousness must be squarely applied. d. R.A No. 8177

Approved on 20 March 1996, is a law designating "death by lethal injection" as the method of carrying out capital punishment in the Philippines, amending Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. e. R.A No. 9346 Imposition of death penalty is prohibited. In lieu of death penalty the following shall be imposed: a. Reclusion Perpetua, when the law violated uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code and b. Life Imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the RPC. f. Revised Penal Code Book 1 Art. 81-85 It states how and when death penalty should be imposed and the circumstances when it can be suspended or commutated.

Pertinent Case Law a. G.R. No. 115938 October 10, 1997,PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FERNANDO GALERA y ROBLES A 26-year-old fish vendor, who was sentenced to death for rape and robbery in April 1994. He is reported to have been too poor to afford to pay for a competent lawyer. He also claimed he did not have enough time to prepare for his defence before his trial. His request for a re-trial, to allow new witnesses to come forward, was refused in May 1994. b. G.R. No. 124077. September 5, 2000, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ADORACION SEVILLA y JOSON @ BABY and JOEL GASPAR y CABRAL A 52-year-old woman, who was sentenced to death with her male business partner, Joel Gaspar, in February 1996 for possession of four kilos of marijuana leaves. The trial judge is reported to have said that the court had no other alternative than to impose the death penalty to serve as a deterrent to others. She is one of seven women who have been sentenced to death for drugs offences or murder. All are believed to have committed their alleged crimes with male accomplices who were also sentenced to

death. Female death row prisoners are held at the Correctional Institute for Women in Manila. c. G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES An illiterate butcher who was sentenced to death for rape and murder in July 1994. The Supreme Court later sent his case back for re-trial after finding that the court proceedings had not been translated from English, which he did not understand, into Waray, his native language. In June 1996 the Iloilo Regional Trial Court sentenced him to death a second time, reportedly on the basis of testimony by one lone witness. d. G.R. No. 117472. June 25, 1996, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO Leo Echegaray was the first Filipino to be meted the death penalty (by lethal injection) in 1999 after its reinstatement in the Philippines in 1993, and 23 years after the last execution was carried out under Philippine law. His death sparked debates about the legality and morality of the death penalty in the Philippines. Echegaray was accused of raping his daughter Rodessa Echegaray (nicknamed by the media as "Baby Echegaray") in April 1994. He was convicted by Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City on September 7, 1994. The death sentence was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court and was affirmed on June 25, 1996. It was appealed by Echegaray, but the appeal was denied on January 19, 1999. Less than a month later, Echegaray was executed on February 5, 1999. e. G.R. No. L-28232 February 6, 1971, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL. Four men were sentenced to death after being convicted for the rape of actress Maggie Dela Reva. She gave evidence against her abductors, which resulted in the conviction of Jaime G. Jose, a popular music band leader and scion of a wealthy Manila family, Basilio Pineda Jr., Rogelio Canal, and Edgardo P. Aquino, by Regional Trial Court Judge Lourdes San Diego. Three of them were executed in the Manila electric chair on May 17, 1972, and by order of President Marcos, the electrocutions were shown on

national television - the fourth, Rogelio Canal, had already died in prison in 1970 from an overdose of drugs. Her ordeal is the subject of Rape In The Philippines. f. G.R. Nos. 138874-75 January 31, 2006 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO” ET AL. The Chiong murder case was a rape-murder case in the Philippines. On July 16, 1997, in Cebu, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong allegedly were kidnapped, raped, and murdered. g. G. R. Nos. 140900, 140911 August 15, 2001, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODERICK LICAYAN ET AL. Licayan and Lara were found guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC as amended. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. In their appeal, they contended that they were illegally arrested since the circumstance under which they were arrested do not fall under the warrantless arrest. In addition, they claim that after their arrest, they were already under custodial investigation and therefore, should have been informed of their constitutional rights which the arresting officer did not do. They did not have counsel when Lara made an admission of participation in the commission of the crime. h. G.R. No. 132676. April 4, 2001, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME CARPO ET AL. On 13 December 1993, the Philippine Congress, by way of Republic Act No. 7659, re-introduced the death penalty by electrocution in respect of "certain heinous crimes", including murder in various circumstances. The substance of the offence of murder remained unchanged. In the evening of 25 August 1996, a grenade was hurled into the bedroom of the Dulay family. The explosion killed Florentino Dulay, as well as his daughters Norwela and Nissan, and wounded a further daughter, Noemi. On 25 October 1996 and 9 December 1996, the authors Jaime Carpo and Roche Ibao, respectively, were arrested. Thereupon, the remaining authors Oscar and Warlito Ibao gave themselves up. On 22 January 1998, the Regional Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, convicted the authors of "multiple murder with attempted murder", sentenced them to death and fixed the sum of civil liability at P600,000. On 4 April 2001, on automatic review of the authors' case, a

fifteen judge bench of the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after extensive review of the facts, and reduced the civil liability to P330,000. As to the sentence of death, the Court considered the case to fall within article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, according to which the most serious penalty for the more serious of several crimes had to be imposed. As the maximum penalty for the most serious crime committed by the authors, ie. murder, was death, the Court considered article 48 applied, and required the death penalty. The judgment also noted that while four justices of the court maintained their position that the Republic Act No 7659, insofar as it prescribed the death penalty, was unconstitutional, those justices submitted to the majority ruling of the Court that Republic Act No 7659 was constitutional, and accordingly that the death penalty should be imposed in the authors' case. The Supreme Court also ordered that the complete records of the case be forwarded to the Office of the Philippine President for possible exercise of executive clemency.

Other studies, researches, articles related to the topic of research Several reasons have been offered by the proponents and opponents of death penalty for and against its application. Many of these reasons are rooted in ideas of humanity, morality, and a positivist social development that prefers to adhere to the theory of correction rather than mere punishment. One factor often overlooked is the practicality and the original reasons for the application of death penalty (something that has been done since time immemorial). Ever since human beings came together in societies, they have found it necessary to live by certain rules in order to preserve community harmony. Punishment was always seen was a necessary way to “teach a lesson” to those who overstepped the bounds for acceptable behaviour established by the community. And as the simple community grew into a more complicated state, punishment was retained now for the protection of both the community peace and the existence of the state. Hence, in the barest terms, humans have always recognized that deviant behaviour destructive to the threads of society must be penalized. It is the method of carrying out this punishment that is debated.

Early societies had no reservations regarding death penalty. It was the ultimate punishment, yes, but in every single civilization, it was resorted to. Humans are not strangers to killing, whether it be under the banner or war, or under the banner of law. But as society developed – or at least, as it likes to think it has developed – along with its advancing technologies and pooling wealth, it began to think that perhaps, death was not the way to go. New philosophies emerged decrying death as a barbaric form of punishment; and putting all those who yet practise it into boxes conveniently labelled “backwards” and “inhuman”. But what economically advanced countries fail to realize is that, just like opinion and religion, there is no ultimate, no perfect way to run a state, to govern citizens, and to enforce laws. The many human societies have always chosen their own method of discipline in accordance with what has historically worked for them, culturally and politically speaking. For no matter how intellectually advanced people become, they still live under the same social structure: somebody rules, and the masses follow. Perhaps it is called democracy now, but the underlying thought is there. A group of people take authority purportedly from the people, and also purportedly according to the mandate of the people, create laws that the people must follow. But it makes no difference what we prefer to call our system of government. It has not changed much since the last thousand years. Politics rules, politics matter, and politics dictate the course our society takes. And with so much at stake, there is often no time for idealistic theorizing. There is only the recourse to history, and the implementation of what works best. Machiavelli himself realized this when he said “Anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved...fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present...since men love as they themselves determine but fear as their ruler determines, a wise prince must rely upon what he and not others can control.”i It has been suggested that death penalty is resorted to by societies with inadequate policing power in order to create the illusion that the government is doing something to protect its citizenry despite the alleged ineffectivity of said measure. In view of this, a comparison is made on retentionist and abolitionist countries based on factors such as Global Peace Index ranking, crimes rates reporting considering also public perception on law enforcement

agencies, particularly the perceived effectivity of the police, and the Human Development Index ranking. Global Peace Index (2012)ii The Global Peace Index ranks countries according to relative peace, considering indicators such as level of safety and security in society and the country’s embroilment in domestic or international conflict, including levels of military expenditure, relations with neighbouring countries, and level of respect for human rights. The index has also been tested against a range of potential drivers or determinants of peace – including levels of democracy and transparency, education, and national wellbeing. Abolished for all crimes Retained for exceptional crimes or special circumstances (eg. Wartime) Abolished in practise (moratorium or no executions in at least 10 years) Retained
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Country Iceland Denmark New Zealand Canada Japan Austria Ireland Slovenia Finland Switzerland Belgium Qatar Czech Republic Sweden Germany Portugal Hungary Norway Bhutan Malaysia 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 153 152 151 Rank 158 157 156 155 154 Country Somalia Afghanistan Sudan Iraq Congo, Demorcatic Republic of Russia North Korea Central African Republic Israel Pakistan Syria Libya Nigeria Chad Colombia Yemen India Georgia Zimbabwe Myanmar

The Philippines ranks 133rd out of 158. A comparison of the application of death penalty by countries ranking above and below it yields:
Rank 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 Country Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Turkey Honduras Iran South Africa Thailand Mauritania Guatemala Venezuela Rank 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Country Cote d’Ivoire Mexico Lebanon Ethiopia Burundi Myanmar Zimbabwe Georgia India Yemen

Thus, out of the top twenty countries ranked as the world’s most peaceful, only one (Japan) from the top ten still impose death penalty. In later years, however, there has been an informal moratorium on it, with judges refusing to impose the death penalty. Collectively, three countries have retained the death penalty: Japan, Qatar, and Malaysia. Qatar prescribes death penalty only for crimes against national security. Only Malaysia imposes death for ordinary crimes: mandatory for trafficking in dangerous drugs, discharging firearm in the commission of a scheduled offence and the accomplices thereof, offences against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s person, and murder; and discretionary for kidnapping, consorting with a person carrying or having possession of arms or explosives, waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agonng, a Ruler, or Yang di-Pertua Negeri. As to the world’s least peaceful countries (also often touted as “world’s most dangerous places”), only two have opted for an abolitionist policy. Of those still imposing death, four are abolitionist in practise, or have a moratorium on death in force, or have nor recorded executions in at least ten years. Only Israel imposes death strictly for exceptional crimes – crimes against humanity, high treason, genocide, and crimes against the Jewish people during wartime. So far, the country only has two recorded executions: accused traitor Meir Tobiansky who was posthumously acquitted, and Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi. The other countries ranking lowest in the peace index still actively impose death penalty. In fact, two of them – Somalia and Syria – still carry out public executions.

Of the countries ranking immediately close to the Philippines, six out of ten of the countries ranking above the Philippines have abolished death penalty. Two still actively impose it: Iran and Thailand. Iran carries out public executions and imposes it for murder, armed robbery, drug trafficking, kidnapping, rape, paedophilia, homosexuality, espionage, terrorism, and apostasy. It has also been shown that it is second only to China in the number of executions carried out per year. Thailand imposes it for regicide, sedition or rebellion, offences committed against the nation’s external security, murder or attempted murder of a foreign head of state, bribery, arson, rape, murder with intent, kidnapping, and robbery resulting in death, among others.iii Another point of comparison is the Human Development Indexiv. Rankings are based on scores computed from life expectancy, literacy, education, living standards, and general quality of life. It is also the basis for categorizing countries into developed, developing, or underdeveloped groupings.
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Country Norway Australia Netherlands United States New Zealand Canada Ireland Liechtenstein Germany Sweden Switzerland Japan Hong kong Iceland South korea Denmark Israel Belgium Austria France Rank 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 Country Congo, Democratic Republic of Niger Burundi Mozambique Chad Liberia Burkina Faso Sierra Leone Central African Republic Guinea Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Mali Ethiopia Zimbabwe Afghanistan Malawi Cote d’Ivoire Sudan Gambia

The Philippines belongs to the Medium Human Development grouping, at 112 th. The countries ranking above and below it are:
Rank 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 Country Moldova Mongolia Maldives Bolivia Paraguay Gabon El Salvador Suriname Thailand Turkmenistan Rank 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Country Egypt Palestinian Territories Uzbekistan Micronesia Guyana Botswana Syria Namibia Honduras Kiribati

Of the countries that have ranked highest in terms of human development, only four still retain death penalty – United States, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. Only United States and Japan actively impose it. Korea imposes a death penalty for murder but there has been an unofficial moratorium on it.v The last convict sentenced to death has not been executed since 2009. Lately, however, the South Korean public is crying for the strict imposition of the death penalty law following an outrage over a rape-murder-human flesh trafficking incident. Out of the bottom twenty, all but four impose death penalty. Of the sixteen that still impose it, nine have not seen an execution for at least ten years or have imposed a moratorium on it. Seven still actively execute convicts. Of the countries that belong to the Medium Human Development grouping, four out of ten of the countries ranking above the Philippines impose death penalty: Maldives, El Salvador, Suriname, and Thailand. Only Thailand imposes death penalty actively and also for ordinary crimes. Maldives and Suriname have not executed in at least ten years, and El Salvador imposes death only during times of International War, and when so provided by military law.vi

The final point of consideration is the crime rate as per report, with relation to perceived dependability of the law enforcement agencies, particularly the police force.

Total Crimes Per Countryvii
Rank Country Rank Country 1 United States 82 Montserrat* 2 United Kingdom 81 Seychelles 3 Germany 80 Albania 4 France 79 Qatar 5 Russia 78 Maldives 6 Japan 77 Dominica 7 South Africa 76 Nepal 8 Canada 75 Oman 9 Italy 74 Armenia 10 India 73 Cyprus *Montserrat is an overseas British territory. There is not information on it regarding death penalty, but it may be safely assumed that Montserrat is likewise abolitionist, as other British and former British territories are.

The Philippines places 47th out of 82 in the rate of crime reporting. The countries ranking above and below it are:
Rank 46 45 44 43 42 Country Lithuania Croatia Greece Slovakia Tunisia Rank 48 49 50 51 52 Country Saudi Arabia Slovenia Ireland Hong Kong Iceland

Out of the top ten countries with the highest number of crimes reported, four impose the death penalty. Three impose it actively. Only Russia has extended a moratorium. On the other hand, six out of nine countries with the lowest number of crimes reported (Montserrat is not included for lack of verifiable information) are abolitionist. Maldives and Dominica have not executed in at least ten years. Only Oman still actively imposes it for ordinary crimes: murder and drug trafficking.viii Of the countries ranking immediately above the Philippines (more crimes reported) in number of crimes reported, four are abolitionist and one is abolitionist in practise. Of those ranking immediately below the Philippines (less crimes reported), four are abolitionist and one is retentionist.

In relation to the above, the countries touted as having “the most corrupt police forces” as compared to the world’s “best/top police forces” are: “Most Corrupt”ix “Best”x
Rank in Reporting 8 2 -1 Not available Crime Rank Country Rank in Crime Reporting Rank Police Force/Country 1 Haiti Not available 2 Mexico 12 1 Royal Canadian 3 Kenya Not available Mounted Police 4 Uzbekistan Not available 2 Scotland Yard – UK 5 Burma 68 3 Interpol* 6 Iraq Not available 4 Los Angeles PD - USA 7 Somalia Not available 5 Victoria Police 8 Afghanistan Not available Australia 9 Sudan Not available 10 Russia 5 *Interpol is not included on account of its international membership.

Of the countries with the “most corrupt” police forces, seven out of ten are not placers in the rate of crime reporting ranking, whereas three out of four countries believed to have the “best” (in terms of efficiency and responsiveness) are top placers in the rate of crime reporting ranking.

Findings: Countries considered “most peaceful” are more likely to have abolished death penalty. Those who still impose it, do so only for heinous crime and crimes committed against national security. On the other hand, countries considered “most dangerous” are more likely to have retentionist policy on death penalty or, even if not practised in a long time, still impose it in their laws. Countries ranking high on the Human Development Index are also more likely to have an abolitionist policy, whereas countries ranking low on Human Development Index are more likely to have retained it, either still actively carrying out executions or at the very least still uphold death penalty in their legal systems. There appears to be no correlation between rate of crimes reported and imposition of death penalty. However, it is likelier that the problem lies with the public’s faith in their country’s law enforcement agency. Seven out of ten countries with the “most corrupt” police forces are not placers in the ranking of most crimes reported while three out of four countries

perceived as having the “best” police forces are top placers in the rate of crime reporting ranking. The Philippines’ position in the Global Peace Index, Human Development index, and Rate of Crime Reporting Index is strictly in the middle. Countries ranking above it are more likely to have already abolished the death penalty, while countries ranking below it are more often than not the complete opposite.

i

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Trans. Daniel Donno, 1966, (New York, 2003), 66-67.

ii

Ami Sedghi, Global Peace Index 2012: The full list, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/global-peace-index-2012,
iii

Use of Capital Punishment by Country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country
iv

List of Countries by Human Development Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
v

Op. Cit., Use of Capital Punishment by Country. Ibid. Total Crimes (Most Recent) by Country, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-

vi

vii

crimes
viii

Op. Cit., Use of Capital Punishment by Country.

ix

Ten Most Corrupt Police Forces in the World, http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10most-corrupt-police-forces-in-the-world.html
x

Top 5 World Police Forces/Departments, http://www.stufflobby.com/2010/11/top-5-world-policeforcesdepartments/

III.

DISCUSSION ON FINDINGS

Capital punishment was re-abolished via Republic Act No. 9346, which was signed by the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 24, 2006. The penalties of life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua superseded the imposition of death penalty. In the case of Echegaray -the first death sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court after Republic Act No. 7659 had

taken effect. In this case, the Information alleged that the victim was the daughter of the accused, Leo Echegaray. It was proven during the trial, however, that he was not a father, stepfather or grandfather of the victim. In People v. Gallo, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, even though the Decision meting out death had already become final. But the case of Echegaray is different. Furthermore, in our contemporary days right now, several heinous crimes committed that creates great anxiety in the society. But still, nevertheless, its re-imposition will just create an unwarranted risk that might impede and embarrass social order in the Philippines and, in fact, it has been a long issue if capital punishment is the answer to deter transgressions.

Taking other’s life is not a sound retribution. Thus, there are other several reformation and correction that would give the person an opportunity to repent his wrongdoings by inflicting some punishment other than death. Ideally, under one of the theories of justifying penalty (i.e. reformation) the object of punishment in criminal cases is to “correct” and “reform” the offender, a criminal that has been convicted or sentenced to life without the benefit of the parole is just, reasonable, and proper. Clearly, as such, it seems to be a more humane option. Letting the prisoner suffer from an elongated and tedious deprivation of liberty should be considered in his favor and the latter shall be entitled to such kind of less alternative penalty other than executing him which would greatly cause a great distress on his part due to such kind of conviction imposed upon him by the court. It is not an imposition of a lenient means of retribution but rather than a wise and prudent reformation. He may be a habitual criminal or recidivist, as the case may be, but it is incumbent upon the proper authorities to act in consonance of reasonable self-preservation. Likewise, we are not in the position to blame the existence of suspending the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines simply because a lot of crimes ensued after its effectivity. Furthermore, there is a lack of security in our society which gives rise to a lot of transgressions transpired within the states jurisdiction, hence proper implementation of our penal laws must be resorted and strict compliance therewith should be encouraged to promote public order and to maintain the cardinal and sound precepts of our society. Wasting lives shall not be countenanced for it will be too late.

Statistically, reinstating the imposition of death penalty will put the government in a situation where they are going to appropriate funds in relation thereto and, therefore, honestly speaking, will spend an amount of money that derives from the people for the culprit or alleged culprit’s execution. In contemplation in the above situation, we should never allow to let this things to happen on the ground that the government must first attend and consider those primary needs of their constituents (e.g. implementing projects that are favorable to those who are in need). Thus, it has been held that public service is one which service to the people shall be the primary and primordial consideration and their interest and other means not within the ambit of the constituent’s outcry shall succumb to it. It is better to accord attention of the society’s recent situation that has been lamented by a lot of tragedies and misfortunes happening, occurring, and persistently subsisting. If we take the risk over the said matters, it will be susceptible to a lot of questions and inquiries because we are not yet certain “whether or not its reinstatement will suppress danger in our society” or “whether or not the consequences thereof (implementation of death penalty) will surmount injustices and mischief”.

As I have reiterated, we must refrain its reinstatement because its imposition has no place in our legal system. Indeed, in spite of the crimes which are highly reprehensible that would cause damage to the state and to the offended party, yet it would still be highly improbable to suppress those crimes which are heinous and abhorrent in nature. Moreover, there is also a big possibility that its imposition will tend to apply discriminately; thus an innocent person may be held guilty and thereafter judicially executed. We should take note, however, that members of the judiciary are all humans and therefore, logically speaking, that they can commit errors as well – it is real and not just a mere speculations and surmises. Thus, it is more detestable that an innocent person may be judicially executed and could die because of the crime imputed upon him whom, in fact, he did not commit due to some kind of human errors and wrongful evaluations. The veracity of its effects, remarkably, will just promote great indecency and

disrespect for life for a simple reason that it can neither apply fairly nor accurately. Thus, as Ralph Nader, one of the prominent American political activist has once stated, to wit: “I have been against the death penalty. It does not deter. It is severely discriminatory against minorities, especially since they’re given no competent legal counsel defense in many cases. It’s a system that has to be perfect. You cannot execute one innocent person. No system is perfect. And to top it off, for those of you who are interested in the economics it, it costs more to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole.” Therefore, instead of advocating such wicked way of social defense, we must exert efforts and provide some ample time to contemplate the situation if it is for the benefit of everybody. The State must render justice and, therefore, they must be very cautious and vigilant in protecting the inherent rights of others with the end view that any decision will be in consonance with what is right and just.

On the other hand, Death Penalty is not filled with demerits. It has its own cons. When you look at the other side of the coin, you would wonder where justice is in that situation. “Fairness and justice – how could it be fair if the victims of a heinous crime who was murdered, rape, tortured and was slain like an animal will never be given justice? And if given, the perpetrators are only sentenced to either life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua and still breathing while the victim was lying now at 6 feet down under. Haven’t they realized that? If conscience is considered in imposing the death penalty, had the criminals also considered their conscience in doing such terrible heinous crimes?

If its fairness and justice we are for, why is the punishment not equivalent with the crimes committed if we want to have a fair and equal justice system? If life is taken by the perpetrators, what is taken then from the victims? Isn’t it still life? Death punishment is a just equivalent to a conviction of a heinous crime. Majority says that “State has no right to put its subject to death” how about the perpetrators do they have also the right to put its victim to such unlawful, ruthless, inhumane

death?

Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self-evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc. Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and only one appeal was permitted.

Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty according to my survey results. Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder.

Christians who speak out against capital punishment in deserving cases " . . . tend to subordinate the justice of God to the love of God. . . . Peter, by cutting off Malchu’s ear,. . . was most likely trying to kill the soldier (John 18:10)", prompting " . . . Christ’s statement that those who kill by the sword are subject to die by the sword (Matthew 26:51-52)." This " implicitly recognizes the government’s right to exercise the death penalty. [A quote from the Bible by Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, "A Matter of Life and Death", p 52 Christianity Today, 8/4/95.]

The top questioned in the imposition of Death Penalty is that “HOW ABOUT THE INNOCENT person sentenced to the said Capital Punishment?” A Convict sentenced with Death Penalty has automatic review in the Supreme Court and that it is not automatically imposed upon a person without prior concurrence of the highest Court. “Why not provide the

imprisoned individuals with Pro-Deo lawyers to properly defend them? Thus lifting the accusations and be released if found innocent. Keeping them in prison is a human-rights violation. Further, should the police would conduct their interrogation and investigation process without inflecting physical threats and assaults to the arrested person. This is not to defend the criminals, far from that! Despite of the pro-life group’s advocacy to end the deathpenalty, I think it is relevant to have the capital punishment be employed to the heinous crimes and harden criminals: kidnappers, murderers, terrorists, killing of the minors and of people without defense (Handicaps). Living in a laxest and permissive society will only put our justice in jeopardy. Surely, Arroyo’s proposition must have the applause of the death-row convicts, but not the family of the victims and the victims themselves.” *from Cecile Impens – internet source]

IV.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The above findings support the contention that death penalty, despite emerging studies

decrying their ineffectivity in deterring crimes, is imposed by countries with less than exemplary law enforcement work in order to create the illusion that the government is doing something to combat crimes. In effect, death penalty is still imposed for the very fundamental reasons it has

been imposed throughout human history: to show potential criminals the consequences of their actions and to reinforce the idea that the state, in protecting itself and its citizens, will not shy away from taking human life. The only difference between capital punishment then and capital punishment now is that there were less reservations in the taking of a convict’s life back then. Executions were brutal and public. The public was made fully aware of the fact, the shame, and the humiliation of a convict’s punishment. But with the modern practise of keeping law-mandated executions as quiet as possible, death penalty has lost its impact. All the scruples necessarily required by human rights before a life is taken has given the convict – the very one who tears through the fabric of social peace – into some sort of sacrificial lamb. The impact of a state execution lost, carrying out death sentences has become nothing more than a useless farce. The question of whether or not to still impose death penalty should not then be based on an absolutely idealistic notion of protection of life, or the hyper-optimistic belief that the penal system truly results in the correction of social deviants. The state’s choice to either keep a convict alive or to kill him should instead be based on said state’s unique culture and political needs. The state should be allowed that make the decision of what is best for its survival and that of its law-abiding citizens without outside interference, harassment, or pressure. Although it really all boils down to more powerful countries shoving their straightjacket views on countries with less means, a state should think primarily of what works for it and should not allow itself to be swayed by the opinions of those who have no first-hand knowledge of the intimate affairs of its nation. In the Philippine setting, taking all the above plus Filipino culture into consideration, it must be concluded that the Philippines is not ready for the revival of the death penalty. Between the strong influence of the Catholic Church even in matters wholly concerning the state, the Filipino habit of making fanfare of everything, the inconsistency of human urges and wishes, and a media inclined to romanticize crime and poverty, an executed criminal is most likely to be treated as a hero. In the face of a broadcast of a particularly shocking crime, the people are going to start calling for a revival of capital punishment, but when one of the masses

is sentenced to death, his situation is immediately blamed on a government and his crime is overlooked allegedly because it was committed for “noble” reasons. The imposition of death is not a show, nor is it an exercise to quench the bloodthirsty, vengeful spirit that arises from man now and then. It is punishment of the most serious sort, imposed only as a last resort. And so that such execution will not become a fruitless exercise of state power, it should be done in such a manner as to impress to the general public the need to stay within the boundaries set by law. Crimes, especially heinous crimes, committed for whatever reasons, are crimes. Convicts sentenced to death are the condemned who have caused such uproar of the worst kind in the community. They are violators of social peace. They are not heroes. They do not deserve to be treated as such.

V.

SOURCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/asiapac.php http://www.japanfocus.org/-Franklin_E_-Zimring/3228 http://www.reprieve.org.uk/tvandradio/2010_02_17_DP_campaing_closure/ http://www.reprieve.org.uk/articles/2010_02_17_DP_campaign_deterrence/ http://www.asc41.com/policies/policypaper2.html http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistentlylower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Republic_Act_No._8177 http://wiki.lawcenter.ph/index.php?title=Death_penalty http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22532,4565c25f413,3ae6a99f4,0,,,PHL.html

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close