yes to death penalty in the philippines essay

• Agri-Commodities
• Asean Economic Community
• Banking & Finance
• Business Sense
• Entrepreneur
• Executive Views
• Export Unlimited
• Harvard Management Update
• Monday Morning
• Mutual Funds
• Stock Market Outlook
• The Integrity Initiative
• Editorial cartoon
• Design&Space
• Digital Life
• 360° Review
• Biodiversity
• Climate Change
• Environment
• Envoys & Expats
• Health & Fitness
• Mission: PHL
• Perspective
• Today in History
• Tony&Nick
• When I Was 25
• Wine & Dine
• Live & In Quarantine
• Bulletin Board
• Public Service
• The Broader Look

Today’s front page, Friday, May 10, 2024

Yes to death penalty?

• Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan
• February 4, 2019
• 5 minute read

The death penalty in the Philippines was first abolished in 1987, making the Philippines the first country in Asia to terminate death penalty. Yet, in less than a year, with the promulgation of a new Constitution after the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, the military establishment lobbied for its imposition to combat the alleged intensifying offensives of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army guerillas.

In mid-1987, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was submitted to Congress, citing recent right-wing coup attempts as example of the alarming deterioration of peace and order. In 1988, the House of Representatives passed the bill that was being promoted as a counterinsurgency bill. When an ex-military officer, Gen. Fidel Ramos, was elected president in 1992, Republic Act 7659 restoring the death penalty was signed into law. Political offenses, such as rebellion, were dropped from the bill; however, the list of crimes was expanded to include economic offenses such as smuggling and bribery. In 1996, RA 8177 was approved, stipulating lethal injection as the method of execution. Six years after its reimposition, the number of death-penalty convicts increased—indicating that the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminality. Certain studies cite statistics indicating that there are no signs that criminality has gone down with the reimposition of the death penalty ( https://www.phlsol.nl/AOOa/Pahra-death-penalty-maroo.htm ):

1) From 1994 to 1995 the number of persons on death row increased from 12 to 104. From 1995 to 1996 it increased to 182. In 1997 the number of death convicts was at 520, and in 1998 the number of inmates in death row was at 781. As of November 1999 there were a total of 956 death convicts at the National Bilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women.

2) As of December 31, 1999, based on the statistics compiled by the Episcopal Commission on Prisoner Welfare of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, there were a total of 936 convicts interned at the National Bilibid Prisons and another 23 detained at the Correctional Institute for Women. Of these figures, six are minors and 12 are foreigners.

3) A review of death-penalty cases made by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999 indicated that two out of every three death sentences handed down by the local courts were found to be erroneous by the Supreme Court. Out of the 959 inmates the SC reviewed, 175 cases were reviewed from 1995 to 1999; three cases were reviewed in 1995, eight in 1996, eight in 1997, 38 in 1998 and 118 in 1999. Of the 175 cases, the SC affirmed with finality and first affirmation only 31 percent or 54 cases involving 60 inmates. Of these cases, 24 were affirmed with finality, while the remaining 36 were given first affirmation. Sixty-nine percent or 121 cases were either modified, acquitted or remanded for retrial.

4) A study prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on the results of the review of cases done by the Supreme Court “point all too clearly to the imperfections, weaknesses and problems of the Philippine justice system.” Some decisions of the trial courts were overturned for imposing death penalty on offenses that were not subject to death penalty. Other decisions of the lower courts were set aside because of substantive and procedural errors during arraignment and trial. Still others were struck down because the lower court misappreciated evidences.

5) Data from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines showed that in 1998 more than half of the convicts earned less than the government-mandated minimum wage. In a survey conducted among 425 convicts in 1998, 105 or 24.7 percent were agricultural workers, 103 were construction workers, 73 were transport workers, and 42 were workers in sales and services. Only 6 percent finished college, while 32.4 percent finished various levels of high school, while the remaining convicts did not go to school or have finished only elementary or vocational education.

On June 24, 2006, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, apparently giving in to the call of the Catholic Church, signed into law RA 9346, “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.” All crimes punishable by death were commuted to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua).

Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, then candidate for president, said in one of the presidential debates that he wants capital punishment for criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire syndicates and those who commit “heinous crimes,” such as rape, robbery or car theft where the victim is murdered. He vowed “to litter Manila Bay with the bodies of criminals.” Sen. Grace Poe then also stated that the capital punishment should apply to criminals convicted of drugs and multiple crimes where involved people can no longer be rehabilitated.

Following the election of Mayor Duterte as president, a bill to reinstate capital punishment for certain heinous offenses was swiftly reported out of the Justice Committee into the full House of Representatives in February 2017. The death penalty bill died in the Senate.

The recent surge in heinous crimes—terrorist bombings, drug trafficking, plunder, rape, murders, extrajudicial killings, smuggling, kidnaping for ransom, gun for hire —has opened the discussion on reinstating the death penalty. Tabloids, which widely publicize horrific crimes in the front pages, reinforce public fears that lawlessness and criminality have reached unprecedented levels. Certain senatorial candidates (e.g., Raffy Alunan, Harry Roque) in a recent CNN debate indicated a “Yes” vote for the restoration of death penalty.

Is death penalty the antidote to crime? Will criminals be afraid to commit a crime if they see that the government is determined to execute them? Oppositors have cited several studies debunking the deterrence theory.

I agree! What would prevent people from committing crimes is the certainty of apprehension, speedy prosecution and, if warranted, conviction. At present, severe imperfections in our justice system, where justice can be bought, could likely result in a situation where the innocent, who cannot afford the services of adequate legal counsel due to poverty, might be executed. I prefer a discussion on the “pros” and “cons” of reinstituting the death penalty—rather than a debate on lowering the age of criminal liability to 12. I shudder at the thought that our children could be “death eligible” if the death penalty were imposed!

In the midst of a strong outcry from citizens who want the government to stop criminality, let the response be genuine, effective and equitable reforms in our Criminal Justice System. The Five Pillars of the Criminal Justice System—(1) The Community, (2) The Law Enforcement, (3) The Prosecution, (4) The Courts and (5) Corrections —should function like a chain of links. A weakness in any of these links breaks the chain, resulting in a breakdown of the system, inordinate delays in the proceedings, acquittal of the guilty and conviction of the innocent.

But the biggest problem would be, in my view, a people that have become cynical, indifferent, callous, frustrated, hardened and uncaring. This is one of the bigger challenges facing this government.

Moving forward with Cipag

• BusinessMirror

May art unite us and help bring peace

• Atty. Jose Ferdinand M. Rojas II

Mother knows best

• Octavio Peralta
• May 10, 2024

Editorial Cartoon May 10, 2024

• BusinessMirror Editorial

The devastating impact of El Niño on poor families

A call for continued action against counterfeit drugs.

• Rep. Brian Raymund S. Yamsuan | Bicol Saro Party-list

The capitalism of love

• Tito Genova Valiente

Supporting the growth of the creatives sector

• Sonny M. Angara

The paradox of plenty and remittances

• Dr. Ser Percival K. Peña-Reyes

Velocita’s Ferrari finds a permanent home

• Al S. Mendoza

Street food delights

• Ma. Stella F. Arnaldo

Will Hilda Koronel be back for the 47th Gawad Urian?

China seen using hacks to build profiles of uk defense personnel.

• Alex Wickham, Ryan Gallagher & Jordan Robertson | Bloomberg
• May 9, 2024

Editorial Cartoon May 09, 2024

The bite of inflation: filipinos struggle as food prices rise, day of victory in the great patriotic war.

• Marat Pavlov | Russian Federation Ambassador to the Philippines

The Philippines: Good or bad?

• John Mangun

Happy summer learning grade-school edition

• Maye Yao Co Say

Suspicious China frying oil is hurting US biofuels business

• Kim Chipman, Tarso Veloso & Michael Hirtzer | Bloomberg
• May 8, 2024

Rents set to be last domino to fall in global inflation battle

• Swati Pandey, Irina Anghel & Enda Curran | Bloomberg

Trump’s private life exposed in intimate Stormy Daniels testimony

• Erik Larson, Patricia Hurtado & David Voreacos | Bloomberg

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Exploring the Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay

Is the death penalty truly an effective deterrent to crime? And what are the ramifications of its application in the Philippines ? Join us as we delve into the controversial topic of capital punishment in the Philippines , examining its history, legal implications, and impact on human rights.

The Philippines made history in 1987 when it became the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, in 1993, it was reintroduced for “heinous” crimes due to public fear and frustration at increasing rates of violent crime. Today, there are more than 400 people on Death Row in the Philippines, making it one of the countries with the highest sentencing rates in the world.

Key Takeaways:

• The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987 but reintroduced in 1993 for “heinous” crimes.
• The country has one of the highest sentencing rates in the world, with over 400 people on Death Row.
• Arguments against the death penalty include doubts about its deterrent effect and concerns about fairness in trials.
• Studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment.
• The international community opposes the death penalty, and the Philippines risks violating its human rights obligations if it reinstates it.

The Legal and Human Rights Context

In 1987, the Philippines promulgated a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, solidifying its commitment to upholding human rights. This important document established an independent Commission on Human Rights and affirmed the country’s dedication to international human rights norms by acceding to major human rights treaties.

However, the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines raises significant concerns regarding human rights violations. The right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are fundamental human rights principles that must be protected.

There have been troubling allegations of torture and ill-treatment used to extract confessions, which not only violates human rights but also poses a grave risk of judicial error. These practices undermine the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system, casting doubt on the credibility of its outcomes.

Furthermore, public doubts persist regarding the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system as a whole. Disparities in access to justice and the unequal treatment of individuals based on their socio-economic status undermine the principles of equality and fairness under the law.

In upholding human rights in the Philippines , it is crucial to critically assess the impact of the death penalty on both the constitutional framework and the broader human rights landscape of the country.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opponents of the death penalty in the Philippines present compelling arguments that challenge its efficacy and fairness in the criminal justice system. These arguments shed light on the flaws and potential injustices associated with capital punishment.

1. Lack of Deterrence

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that it does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment. Research has shown that the threat of execution does not significantly reduce crime rates. Instead, addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and implementing effective rehabilitation programs have been proven to be more successful in reducing recidivism.

2. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

Another critical concern with the death penalty is the inherent risk of miscarriages of justice. No criminal justice system is immune from errors, and wrongful convictions can and do occur. Once a person is executed, there is no opportunity for exoneration if new evidence or factual errors come to light. This irrevocability magnifies the importance of ensuring fair trials and avoiding irreversible mistakes.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Disadvantaged Sectors

Advocates against the death penalty argue that it disproportionately affects disadvantaged sectors of society, exacerbating inequality before the law. Studies have shown that individuals from marginalized communities, who often lack access to quality legal representation, are more likely to receive harsher sentences, including the death penalty. This systemic bias raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment under the law.

“The death penalty fails to address the root causes of crime and perpetuates a system that disproportionately impacts vulnerable individuals and communities.” – Human Rights Watch

Promoting alternatives to capital punishment that focus on rehabilitation, reform, and addressing societal inequalities could lead to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

These arguments challenge the effectiveness, fairness, and justice of the death penalty in the Philippines. Considering these concerns is crucial in promoting a criminal justice system that upholds human rights, equality, and the pursuit of genuine justice.

Impact on Crime Levels

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty does not have a significant impact on reducing crime levels or enhancing the security of law-abiding citizens. Numerous studies conducted in various countries have consistently shown that there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment. Instead, several underlying factors contribute to the root causes of criminal behavior.

The Real Factors Fueling Criminality

Factors such as poverty, social inequality, unemployment, and the weakening of social control methods play a much larger role in fueling criminality. Socioeconomic disparities and lack of access to basic needs often lead individuals towards criminal activities . Addressing these fundamental issues and implementing effective social and economic policies can have a more significant impact on crime reduction and the overall well-being of society.

“The death penalty doesn’t solve the issues of crime; it merely masks the underlying societal problems that need to be addressed.” – Dr. Maria Santos, Criminologist

Statistics on Death Penalty and Crime Rates

Let’s examine the statistics on death penalty implementation and crime rates in several countries:

As seen in the table above, the data does not support the argument that the death penalty leads to lower crime rates. In fact, countries with abolished death penalty have shown low to moderate crime rates, while countries that retain the death penalty exhibit varying levels of crime rates.

The statistics clearly indicate that the death penalty is not a reliable tool for crime prevention. To ensure a safer society, it is crucial to address the root causes of crime and implement comprehensive social and economic reforms that uplift communities and provide opportunities for all individuals.

Concerns about Fair Trials

The rapid rate of death sentences in the Philippines is taking place within a context of public doubts over the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system. There is a perception that those with influence or wealth can enjoy impunity, while those from disadvantaged sectors of society face disadvantage in the criminal justice system. Safeguards to ensure fair trials, including the right to competent legal counsel, are not consistently upheld.

Historical Use of the Death Penalty

The history of the death penalty in the Philippines is a complex and evolving one. Capital punishment has been a part of the country’s criminal justice system during different periods of its history.

Under Spanish rule, the Spanish Codigo Penal of 1848, which was introduced in the Philippines in 1884, included several capital offenses such as treason, piracy, and murder. During this time, the death penalty was carried out through methods such as firing squad and garrote.

Following the introduction of internal self-government in 1934 and full independence in 1946, there were changes in the application of the death penalty. The newly established Philippine government sought to reform the criminal justice system, and discussions on the abolition of the death penalty emerged.

However, in more recent times, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 for “heinous” crimes, due to public fear and increasing rates of violent crime. Today, the country grapples with a high number of individuals on Death Row and ongoing debates on the efficacy and ethics of capital punishment.

International Human Rights Obligations

The Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007, which requires countries to abolish the death penalty. Reinstating the death penalty would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law and could result in consequences from foreign trade partners. The international community, including human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, opposes the death penalty.

Current Situation and Government Stance

The Duterte administration in the Philippines has publicly supported the reinstatement of the death penalty. This stance aligns with President Rodrigo Duterte’s tough-on-crime approach, particularly in addressing drug offenses. Currently, the House Committee on Justice is deliberating on bills that propose the reintroduction of capital punishment, specifically through lethal injection.

President Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs” has already resulted in thousands of deaths attributed to both the police and unidentified assailants. With the government’s overwhelming majority in Congress, it is likely that the death penalty bills will gain support and further progress in the legislative process.

“We need to bring back the death penalty to instill fear, to deter, to prevent crime,” President Duterte said during his 2020 State of the Nation Address.

The government’s position on the death penalty reflects its determination to tackle crime effectively and send a strong message about the consequences of engaging in illegal activities . However, this stance has drawn criticism and concerns from human rights advocates, who argue that capital punishment can lead to violations of the right to life and may exacerbate issues of judicial fairness and errors.

As the debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty continues, it is essential to consider the potential impact on human rights, the criminal justice system, and the broader social fabric of the Philippines.

Risks and Impact on Human Rights

Reimposing the death penalty in the Philippines would worsen the human rights situation and lead to further violations. It would perpetuate the government’s “war on drugs” and increase bloodshed. The rights-violating abyss that the country would descend into cannot be overstated.

“The death penalty contradicts the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. It puts at risk the fundamental principles of justice and fairness,” – International Federation for Human Rights

Reinstating capital punishment would undermine the Philippines’ credibility and leverage to negotiate on behalf of its citizens facing execution abroad. The government’s recent withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, coupled with the potential reintroduction of the death penalty, places the country on a dangerous path towards becoming an international human rights pariah.

The death penalty in the Philippines is a complex issue that raises serious questions about human rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Arguments against the death penalty emphasize concerns regarding its efficacy as a deterrent, the potential for wrongful convictions, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Furthermore, reintroducing the death penalty would violate the country’s international human rights obligations.

The opposition to capital punishment is not confined to the Philippines alone; the international community, including prominent human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, rejects the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Restoring the death penalty would not only damage the Philippines’ standing in the global community but also hinder its ability to advocate for its citizens facing execution abroad.

It is important to consider the government’s stance on the death penalty, particularly in the context of the ongoing “war on drugs” initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte. The administration’s support for capital punishment, combined with the alarming number of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses, raises concerns about the state of human rights in the country. Reimposing the death penalty would exacerbate these issues and further undermine the Philippines’ credibility as a protector of human rights.

In conclusion, the death penalty in the Philippines should be critically examined in light of its potential ramifications for human rights and the judicial system. The arguments against capital punishment, the opposition from the international community, and the questionable human rights situation within the country all contribute to the conclusion that reinstating the death penalty would be a regressive step that contradicts the principles of justice and human rights.

What is the current status of the death penalty in the Philippines?

What are the main arguments against the death penalty in the philippines, does the death penalty have a significant impact on reducing crime levels, are fair trials guaranteed in the judicial system of the philippines, what is the historical use of the death penalty in the philippines, does the philippines have international human rights obligations regarding the death penalty, what is the government’s stance on the death penalty in the philippines, what are the risks and impact of reinstating the death penalty in the philippines, what is the conclusion regarding the death penalty in the philippines, source links.

• https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/an-argument-against-the-re-imposition-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-Yy0RFsgW
• https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a99f4.html
• https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines

Hello! I'm Wise, a Filipina with a deep love for my country and a passion for sharing its beauty with the world. As a writer, blogger, and videographer, I capture the essence of the Philippines through my eyes, hoping to give foreign visitors a true taste of what makes these islands so special.

From the vibrant streets of Manila to the tranquil beaches of Palawan, my journey is about uncovering the hidden gems and everyday wonders that define the Filipino spirit. My articles and blogs are not just travel guides; they are invitations to explore, to feel, and to fall in love with the Philippines, just as I have.

Through my videos, I strive to bring the sights, sounds, and stories of my homeland to life. Whether it's the local cuisine, the colorful festivals, or the warm smiles of the people, I aim to prepare visitors for an authentic experience.

For those seeking more than just a vacation, the Philippines can be a place of discovery and, perhaps, even love. My goal is to be your guide, not just to the places you'll visit, but to the experiences and connections that await in this beautiful corner of the world. Welcome to the Philippines, through my eyes. Let's explore together!

You may also like

Meet the 24 Senators of the Philippines 2024!

Shop at Beyond The Box Philippines – Tech & More

Explore Courses at Polytechnic University Philippines

Add comment, cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want Flight, Hotel, and Restaurant Discounts for Your Philippines Trip? Join Below!

Email address:

Buy Me a Coffee

Sample details

• Punishment,
• Death Penalty,

Philippines

• Views: 1,419

Related Topics

• Healthy Diet
• health policy
• Public Health
• Vaccination
• Healthy Lifestyle

Yes to Death Penalty in the Philippines Argumentative Essay

The author discusses the issue of justice and the increasing number of crimes that are not being solved. They mention the death penalty, which is a difficult decision in a Catholic country like the Philippines where life is considered sacred. However, the author believes it may be necessary to take action beyond what society is used to in order to address the issue. The author suggests revising or updating constitutional laws, such as the age of those who can be imprisoned after being proven guilty of a crime. The author believes it is time for leaders to be firm in their decisions and actions and as a student, they will support these decisions.

Cases occur every second, whether in the country or worldwide, causing people to question justice and bringing problems and suffering, particularly for victims. The death penalty is carried out using an electric chair, where proven suspects or criminals are executed by electricity within seconds. Being predominantly Catholic, the Philippines strictly upholds moral standards.

As a teenager, I am confronted with the challenging choice of whether or not to endorse the death penalty. Although my parents consistently emphasize the value and sanctity of life, the growing amount of unresolved crimes has influenced me towards supporting its execution. I strongly believe that it is imperative to surpass our conventional approaches and take decisive measures. If accepting or embracing this idea is unattainable, I sincerely desire a revision or alteration of our constitutional laws.

The issue of minimum age for imprisonment is urgent because children as young as 10 are engaging in criminal activities without facing any consequences, leading to a disregard for laws. It is crucial for our leaders to take decisive measures to tackle this problem. As a student, I am dedicated to fully supporting their decisions.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/yes-to-death-penalty-in-the-philippines/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Food and Drug Administration
• health sciences
• Corporal punishment

Check more samples on your topics

Re-imposition of death penalty in the philippines argumentative essay.

Death Penalty

As this present days the rates of crimes are Increasing Like kidnapping, murder, rape, car-napping, riding In tandem, drug smuggling and many more. This gruesome crimes has been done by the criminal without any hesitation. Why? Because they know that the capital punishment of the Philippines was light. Criminal knows that If they committed a

Thesis statement pro death penalty Argumentative Essay

There Is nothing more final than death. As such before we decide such a major Issue as the Death Penalty we better be sure of what we are doing! Superficially it may seem very simple – you kill therefore you should die – but is it really that simple? Let’s take a closer look…. In

Argument: Is the Death Penalty Effective? Argumentative Essay

The death penalty gives closure to the victims of families who have endured the tragedy that many of us fear the most. When someone Is executed who killed a family member, vengeance is a part of the emotions that everyone feels. Families of murder victims would get a sense of closure knowing the person who

Death penalty thesis statement Argumentative Essay

Throughout history, societies have punished criminals by executing them, but today many countries have abolished the death penalty. In the united States however, the federal government and many of the states continue to sentence convicted criminals to death. This leads us to the question: Should the government have the power to sentence convicted criminals to

Is the death penalty effective argumentative

I'm for the death penalty because I believe intentionally taking another human beings life then, yours should be taken also. If the death penalty was not enforced the criminal would still be living with the satisfaction of killing someone. Although, they are locked up in prison for the rest of their life, they're still being

Should the Death Death Penalty Be Legal? Sample

In 2011 43 people received capital penalty and in 2010 46 people were besides killed because of capital penalty. Now in the twelvemonth 2012 there are 3. 146 decease row inmates waiting to be executed. A Gallic philosopher. Albert Camus one time said “Capital penalty is the most premeditated of murders” . Do you believe

The Death of the Death Penalty

Is The Death Penalty Effective

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” (Tolkien, 1954) Majority of America have their own strong beliefs as to whether capital punishment should remain in todays society. Those who oppose the death penalty

Death to the Death Penalty

The death penalty has been around as far back as the Bible times. Perhaps even later. It hasn’t been until the last century or so that its ethicality has been questioned. As of now, every single country in Europe except Belarus has abolished the death penalty and this is actually a prerequisite to enter the

Teenage Pregnancy in the Philippines Argumentative Essay

In the year 2013, the total count of the population in the Philippines adds up to 105. 72 million, which makes the country the twelfth most populated nation in the world, such a huge number for a relatively small country. In addition to that, over the past ten years, the number of Filipinos who got

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

DEATH PENALTY

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere..

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the   crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. • Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. • The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.

Execution Methods

• Beheading • Electrocution • Hanging • Lethal injection • Shooting

WHERE DO MOST EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner  – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least  883  excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still sentence to death and execute juvenile defendants. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 149 executions of child offenders in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many child offenders as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 99 child offenders since 1990.

Executions per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 657 executions in 20 countries in 2018, down by 5% from 2018 (at least 690 executions). This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in at least a decade.

Death sentences per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,307 death sentences in 56 countries in 2019, a slight decrease from the total of 2,531 reported in 2018. At least 26,604 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2019.

HOW MANY DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR?

Death sentences.

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,052 death sentences in 56 countries in 2021, an increase of 39% from the total of 1,477 reported in 2020. At least 28,670 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2021.

Amnesty International recorded at least 579 executions in 18 countries in 2021, up by 20% from 2020 (at least 483 executions). This figure represents the second lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded since at least 2010.

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen. Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 160 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime. Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems. In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory. The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool. The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty doing to abolish the death penalty?

For 40 years, Amnesty has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2019, was released in April 2020.

The organisation’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in the Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia region; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty by the UN General Assembly; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 106 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

In the Philippines

More than a decade ago, the Philippines recognized that the capital punishment is the ultimate violation of the right to life by abolishing the Republic Act 7659, later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which further emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment. Since the start of President Duterte’s term in 2016 however, he has sought to reinstate the death penalty, and almost succeeded when the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill in 2017.

Today, we call on the Philippine Senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Call on our Senators to recognize that the death penalty fails as a deterrent to any form of crime and contributes to a culture that continually devalues life.

Recorded executions skyrocket to highest figure in five years

The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful and ineffective response to drugs, death penalty myths debunked.

PGA’s vision is to contribute to the creation of a Rules-Based International Order for a more equitable, safe, sustainable and democratic world.

Philippines and the Death Penalty

Although the Philippines was the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, it was re-imposed during the administration of President Fidel Ramos to address the rising crime rate in 1993, only to be abolished again in 2006, after the then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed a law reducing maximum punishment to life imprisonment. The country subsequently signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (ICCPR-OP2) on 20 November 2007.

The May 2016 election of President Rodrigo Duterte, who vowed to reintroduce the death penalty to combat drug trafficking in the Philippines and other crimes during his campaign, posed a new serious threat to the protection of human rights in the country. On 7 March 2017, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Bill No. 4727 on the reinstatement of the death penalty for drug-related and “heinous” crimes. The Bill, however, remained stalled in the Senate for the following months due to a lack of support from Senators, including several PGA Members who publicly spoke out against the reintroduction of capital punishment in the country.

Yet, the mid-term elections of May 2019, which gave a majority to senators from President Duterte’s party (PDP-Laban), relaunched the pro-death penalty movement, and 18 concerning bills on this matter were presented to the House of Representatives in September that same year. Although unsuccessful, other attempts were made again in 2020, following a shooting in Tarlac .

On 2 March 2021, the House of Representatives adopted House Bill No. 7814 , allowing the reintroduction of the death penalty under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 – the second bill in five years proposing a return to capital punishment that passed to the Senate. But support from Senators who previously positioned themselves in favor of such reinstatement diminished, thus reducing the risk of a return to the use of capital punishment.

Overall, vigilance must prevail, notably considering the coming to power of Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Junior as President and Sara Duterte as Vice President following the presidential elections of May 2022. The threat of a possible reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines remains latent.

The Philippines has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1986 and its Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (ICCPR-OP2) in 2007 .

PGA activities on the abolition of the death penalty in the country:

30-31 October 2018:  PGA organised, in partnership with ADPAN and Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM), a regional parliamentary seminar entitled “Standing Against Death Penalty in Asia: The Role of Parliamentarians ” in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). Hon. Tomasito Villarin , Member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, attended the event and gave an intervention on the experience of the Philippines with the death penalty, including recent efforts to block its reintroduction.

29 November 2017:  PGA organized a side-event to its 39 th  Annual Forum in Milan (Italy), entitled  “Moving Away from Capital Punishment in Asia” . The event focused on the issues and arguments particularly relevant to the abolitionist movement in Asian countries. This gave the opportunity to PGA Member  Sen. Antonio Trillanes  to share his experience with fellow Asian parliamentarians and discuss how to best act against the reintroduction of the death penalty in abolitionist countries.

16 October 2017:  PGA issued a  statement  welcoming the move by nine of the twenty-four Filipino Senators, including PGA Members  Sen. Antonio Trillanes  and  Sen. Leila de Lima , to speak out against the government’s move to reintroduce the death penalty in the country, which led to the relevant Committee to defer its discussion of the bill. Sen. Trillanes also published a  statement .

Parliamentary Guidebook on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

English Français

Factsheet for Parliamentarians Death Penalty and Poverty

Parliamentary Factsheet on the Death Penalty and Terrorism-Related Offences

English Français العَرَبِيَّة‎

Parliamentary Factsheet on the Death Penalty and Mental Health

• Subscribe Now

Why the death penalty is unnecessary, anti-poor, error-prone

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

To address the country’s drug and crime problem, President Duterte has called on Congress to resurrect the death penalty after it was abolished in 2006. 

In response, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice swiftly approved House Bill 1 last December, with plenary debates now ongoing. In the Senate, the death penalty bill is reportedly having a much harder time because of greater opposition from the senators. ( READ: Senate poised to kill death penalty )

Indeed, there’s a great deal of debate surrounding the pros and cons of the death penalty. But in this article we take on the issue by turning to statistics, empirical studies, and a review of the country’s past experience with the death penalty.

All in all, the data suggest that the death penalty will be unnecessary, anti-poor, and error-prone given the current state of our legal and judicial system.

1) Crime rates have fallen even without the death penalty.

Many people justify the return of the death penalty because of its purported ability to quell the rising tide of criminality plaguing the country. The idea is that executing felons for committing heinous crimes will deter future criminals, thus lowering crime rates.

But Figure 1 shows that from 1978 to 2008 there had been a general decline in the incidence of “index crimes”. These are crimes that occur with “sufficient regularity” and have “socioeconomic significance”, including some “heinous” ones like murder and rape.

Crime data are usually laden with many caveats, most notably underreporting. But despite these limitations, Figure 1 suggests at least 3 things.

First, the supposed “rising tide” of criminality is more of a myth than a fact: index crimes have, in fact, been falling steadily since the early 1990s.

Second, even in the years without the death penalty, the index crime rate had plummeted. Hence, the death penalty is not necessary to see a fall in crime rates.

Third, even after a record number of executions in 1999 (when Leo Echegaray and 6 others were put to death by lethal injection), no pronounced drop in index crimes was observed. The incidence of index crimes even rose by 8.8% from 1999 to 2002.

2) Studies abroad could also not find strong evidence the death penalty deters crime.

Many other countries also fail to see compelling evidence the death penalty deters crime.

In the US, for example, the death penalty alone could not explain the great decline in homicide rates observed in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows that the homicide rates in Texas, California, and New York had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the 1990s. This is despite the fact that these 3 states used the death penalty very differently: Whereas Texas executed 447 people over that period, California executed just 13 people, and New York executed no one.

Indeed, the US National Research Council concluded in 2012 that, “research to date…is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”

In Asia, a separate study reached the same conclusion when it compared the homicide rates in Singapore (a country of many executions) and Hong Kong (few executions). More recent research also shows that, instead of imposing harsher punishments, a higher certainty of being caught may be more effective in deterring crime.

3) Previous death sentences fell disproportionately on the poor.

The death penalty, as applied in the Philippines before, was not only unnecessary in reducing crime but also largely anti-poor: poor inmates were more likely to be sentenced to death than rich inmates.

Back in 2004 the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) did a survey of 890 death row inmates. Among other things, FLAG found that 79% of death row inmates did not reach college and 63% were previously employed in blue-collar work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and construction.

Most tellingly, two-thirds of death row inmates had a monthly wage on or below the minimum wage (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, less than 1% of death row inmates earned a monthly wage of more than P50,000.

One main reason behind this disparity is that rich inmates have much more resources to aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g., hiring a battery of lawyers) compared to poor inmates. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the death penalty will only continue to be a vehicle for “selective justice”.

4) Previous death sentences were also error-prone.

Too many Filipinos were also wrongly sentenced to death before. This may be the single most damning argument against the reimposition of the death penalty.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court admitted that a vast majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed the death penalty during the time it was available as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.

Figure 4 shows that of the 907 death convictions that went to the Supreme Court for review, as many as 72% were erroneously decided upon. These cases were returned to lower courts for further proceedings, reduced to life imprisonment, or even reversed to acquittal. By detecting these errors, a total of 651 out of 907 lives were saved from lethal injection.

Unless this alarmingly high rate of “judicial errors” is fixed, bringing back the death penalty will only put more innocent people on death row.

Conclusion: The death penalty is a naïve way of dealing with criminality

The death penalty can be assailed on many grounds, whether moral, philosophical, or legal. But just by focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the death penalty, as used in the past, was largely unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime.

Even assuming for a moment that it was a deterrent, the death penalty tended to discriminate against the poor and was subject to alarmingly high error rates.

It is no wonder that so many countries around the world today have abolished the death penalty rather than retained it. As of 2015, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than many of our politicians will care to admit. Reinstating the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is a patently naïve and simplistic way of going about it. – Rappler.com

JC Punongbayan is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. Kevin Mandrilla is an MA student at the UP Asian Center with a background in human rights advocacy. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliations.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

JC Punongbayan

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

The Death Penalty is Wrong

This essay about the death penalty argues strongly against its use, presenting it as morally and ethically flawed. It highlights the irreversible consequences of executing potentially innocent people and the perpetuation of violence and inequality it fosters within society. The text emphasizes the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and disputes the effectiveness of capital punishment as a crime deterrent. Advocating for abolition, the essay promotes a justice system focused on rehabilitation and reconciliation, positioning the death penalty as an outdated form of retribution incompatible with a humane and just society.

How it works

In the complex tapestry of human civilization, few debates evoke such profound moral, ethical, and philosophical inquiries as the question of capital punishment. Advocates on both sides present compelling arguments rooted in notions of justice, deterrence, and retribution. However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the death penalty, in all its manifestations, is fundamentally flawed, morally bankrupt, and irreversibly cruel.

At its core, the death penalty hinges on the irreversible act of taking a human life. This is not merely an abstraction or a theoretical construct but a stark reality with profound implications.

The state, endowed with the authority to execute its citizens, assumes a role that transcends mere administration of justice; it becomes an arbiter of life and death, a power traditionally reserved for divine entities. In wielding this power, the state risks grave error and moral transgression.

The fallibility of human judgment is an undeniable facet of any legal system. Despite rigorous procedural safeguards, the risk of wrongful conviction looms ominously over capital cases. History bears witness to countless instances of miscarriages of justice, where individuals have been condemned to death for crimes they did not commit. The irrevocable nature of the death penalty precludes any possibility of rectifying these egregious errors. An innocent life lost to the machinery of state-sanctioned death represents an irreparable travesty of justice, a stain on the collective conscience of society.

Moreover, the death penalty perpetuates cycles of violence and vengeance rather than fostering genuine reconciliation and healing. By endorsing the principle of “an eye for an eye,” proponents of capital punishment perpetuate a culture of retribution that undermines the very fabric of civilized society. Rather than offering closure to victims’ families, executions often prolong their suffering, perpetuating a cycle of trauma and despair. True justice demands a more enlightened approach, one that prioritizes rehabilitation, restitution, and reconciliation over punitive measures.

Furthermore, the death penalty disproportionately targets marginalized and vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing inequalities within the criminal justice system. Studies have consistently shown that race, socioeconomic status, and geographic location play significant roles in determining who receives the ultimate punishment. The specter of racial bias looms large over capital trials, with African Americans and other minority groups disproportionately represented on death row. Such systemic disparities not only undermine the integrity of the legal system but also reinforce patterns of oppression and injustice.

Beyond its moral and ethical implications, the death penalty is also a deeply flawed deterrent to crime. Empirical evidence suggests that the threat of execution fails to deter individuals from committing heinous acts. In fact, jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty often experience lower rates of violent crime than those that retain it. Rather than serving as a deterrent, the death penalty serves as a grim reminder of society’s capacity for violence and barbarism.

Abolishing the death penalty does not imply sympathy for the perpetrators of heinous crimes. On the contrary, it reflects a commitment to upholding the sanctity of human life and dignity, even in the face of unspeakable evil. It affirms our collective belief in the possibility of redemption and rehabilitation, even for those who have committed the most egregious offenses. By abolishing the death penalty, we affirm our commitment to building a more just, humane, and compassionate society—one that values healing and reconciliation over vengeance and retribution.

In conclusion, the death penalty is a relic of a bygone era, steeped in the antiquated notions of retribution and vengeance. Its continued existence not only undermines the moral integrity of our legal system but also perpetuates cycles of violence and injustice. As a society, we must reject the death penalty in all its forms and embrace more enlightened approaches to justice—one that upholds the sanctity of human life, promotes healing and reconciliation, and affirms our shared humanity. Only then can we truly aspire to build a more just and compassionate world for generations to come.

Cite this page

The Death Penalty is Wrong. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

"The Death Penalty is Wrong." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Death Penalty is Wrong . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/ [Accessed: 10 May. 2024]

"The Death Penalty is Wrong." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

"The Death Penalty is Wrong," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/. [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Death Penalty is Wrong . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-death-penalty-is-wrong/ [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers