8/3/2019 Abolition of Death Penalty

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abolition-of-death-penalty 1/2

ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

DEFINITION

According to Republic Act No. 7659, death penalty is a penalty for crimes that 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." Death penalty is a cruel, futile

and dangerous punishment for "very serious reasons and with due judicial

process." According to Amnesty International, a worldwide movement of people

working for internationally recognized human rights; death penalty is the

ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. Thus, they worked towards

abolishing it in order to "end the cycle of violence created by a system riddled

with economic and racial bias and tainted with human error."

Next, I would like to present a brief background on death penalty in the

Philippines. In 1987, the Philippines made history by becoming the first Asian

country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, six

years later, in 1993, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines for 46

different offences. Such of those are murder, rape, parricide, infanticide and

qualified bribery, among others. Executions resumed in 1999 until year 2000when former President Estrada announced a moratorium on executions. This has

been continued by current President Arroyo, in practice, throughout her

presidency. Now, under her rule, the death penalty is again abolished .

STANCE

I am in favor of abolishing the death penalty law in the Philippines. Allow me to

present my arguments. First, it violates the right to live. Second, it is a very cruel

practice. Third, it is anti-poor. Last, death penalty defeats its purpose.

ARGUMENTS

First, the imposition of death penalty violates a person's right to live. Article III

Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, states

that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property…" By imposing death

penalty, the right of a criminal to live is being violated.

8/3/2019 Abolition of Death Penalty

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abolition-of-death-penalty 2/2

Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos are Catholics. As said, we

have one of the world's largest Christian populations. According to the Ten

Commandments of the Church, thou shall not kill. Therefore, nobody is given the

right to commit the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or not,

nobody has the right to play God and take the life that He has given. Filipinosshould "respect and value the sanctity of human life and uphold the virtue and

religious doctrines that are expected of us as a dominant Christian nation."

Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible practice. It is very cruel and in

human because persons are killed. This alone is proof. Once a person is killed, the

act cannot be reversed.

Third, death penalty is anti-poor. In a country like the Philippines with a very

slow, sometimes inefficient, unfair and unjust judicial system, death penalty issimply not viable. Majority of the 1200 people on the death row are poor. Maybe,

for some, being there is what they deserve. But for many, it is poverty that

brought them there. Not everyone in that row should die. Many are simply there

because they ran against some filthy rich and powerful person or they could not

afford to get a good lawyer to defend them. A study showed that "death penalty

is anti-poor as the underprivileged who cannot afford the services of competent

counsels are oftentimes the ones convicted of death penalty". "Studies have

shown that the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on the poorest, leasteducated and most vulnerable members of society. It takes the lives of offenders

who might otherwise have been rehabilitated."

Lastly, death penalty does not live up to its purpose. It is not able to serve its

purpose which is to prevent crimes and to preserve peace and order. According to

the President, in a letter she sent to Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, the

imposition of death penalty "was shown to have not served its principal purpose

of effectively deterring the commission of heinous crimes". Clearly, even with

death penalty imposed, the Philippines still continued to project high and risingcrime rates in the country. If death penalty is effective, there should have been

less crimes but it is quite the contrary. Also, there are no concrete evidence like

studies or tests that could prove that the imposition of death penalty really

prevents crime thus maintaining peace and order in the country.