One day in ancient Mesopotamia, there lived a ruler, arguably the greatest of them all, whose firm grip through laws instilled fear among his kingdom — Hammurabi. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, we are no strangers to this infamous proverb; a seemingly simple fundamental to a framework of law that would become so effective in maintaining peace. The Hammurabi’s code basically states that what punishment you’ll receive depends on the crime you commit, which translates to amputation for theft, death for murder. Hammurabi has executed this law towards all his people, the result — a civilization which progressed wherein every right of each people is respected. With this being said, death penalty can be one of the major solutions to reducing crimes in the Philippines.
Death penalty, the punishment of execution, does not guarantee safety and it does not serve as deterrent to crimes. The implementation of death penalty would not be effective in suppressing crimes as there will only be a certain category of heinous crime that will equate to such punishment. Crimes like murder, rape, plunder, and treason are included in this category and as such fear will be propagated towards other criminals tempting the same crime but not inclusive of all the crimes. Crimes under the punishment of death will only decrease in spite of that the ones excluded of death penalty has a high possibility of growth since offenders might turn into crimes not punishable by death. Also, conflict among relatives will abruptly occur, it will a cause a saga, an unending violence, rooting to other crimes that will set a whole new series of violence. Besides, reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment can serve as an alternative. Moreover, capital punishment is a point off morality for the bounds of human life must not be defined based on what an individual has done, heinous or not. Everyone has the right to live and no one has the prerogative to put an end towards anyone. Death is not a judgment of bare hands and even of the court. Furthermore, the Philippine Judicial System has its flaws but if we put it in a higher perspective in the western context, even considering growth and advancement, verdicts are not that accurate as it should be. Some were persecuted for the crimes they did not commit. Imagine having someone killed for something in which he/she is innocent of. One of which is the arson case of Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas in 1991, the prosecution charge him with death penalty in form of lethal injection. Several trials and forensic exams has been made proving the conviction of the court but in the year 2004, evidencesuggesting the innocence of Willingham has been found and been proved by the US Justice Department and FBI by 2015. The law is not free from human error, and human life is too much of a price to gamble.
The implementation of death penalty can actually serve as a deterrent. According to Arroyo (2003), fear will be instilled in the minds of criminals and to-be-criminals. With death being the punishment for crimes, people would think twice before committing heinous crimes. Retribution is the primary purpose of a just punishment. Through the implementation of death penalty, it would show that the court is done being blinded by the criminals and now sympathizing the victims of the crimes in order to have a fair trial. Furthermore, it will restore faith in the judicial system. Capital Punishment is not for the cycle of violence but rather, it stops future violence.
Desperation amongst the criminal and his/her family will end and closure will be provided. Yes, death penalty will greatly affect the family but it is better since it is not long term. They would express grief for a short term unlike in life imprisonment which might give them false hopes. Rejection of the criminals’ appeals will just make them desperate which might cause them to do unacceptable things again. Even if reclusion Perpetua would be preferred, it does not mean that the criminals are safe. Bernardo Anzures, who stabbed a Filipino film actress and her house maid, also died in jail due to Tuberculosis. The uncleanliness and impurity of the prison made it harder for Anzures to keep himself healthy. Furthermore, looking at the overpopulated prison cells in the Philippines, sustaining the everyday lives of the prisoners is costly. Is it justified that a person guilty of heinous crimes lives in prison with all the basic amenities at the cost of the taxpayers’ money? In fact, the money used for that should be added for more useful things like government projects.
Despite verdicts being not that accurate, the instance that an innocent person would be killed is rare. Since the country would be new to Capital Punishment again, fair and just trial would be observed on future cases. Improving the system of representation and the use of scientific evidence should be instituted to minimize the risk of persecuting an innocent person. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. Moreover, many of the claims of innocence that were released from death row were all based from legal technicalities. Hypothetical claims of innocence were used as delaying tactics to postpone the execution for as long as possible. The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal.
Death Penalty, given all the supporting arguments and evidences, can be used as a solution to reduce crimes in the Philippines. The government should make a significant change in the judicial system by implementing Capital Punishment. This change needs further examination and keen observation to make the said punishment successful.
WRITTEN BY: JAIME S. SERRANO II & MIKHA PINTO
blog, pipi, at bingi 