DEATH

PENALTY
Submitted by:
TAN, Alexis Vianca
TECSON, Francinette
UBANA, Carl Jason
VERSOZA, Anjelica
VILLAFLORES, Karen Faith

HISTORY OF DEATH PENALTY

As far back as the Ancient Laws of China, the death penalty has been
established as a punishment for crimes. In the 18th Century BC, the Code of King
Hammurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for twenty five different crimes,
although murder was not one of them. The first death sentence historically recorded
occurred in 16th Century BC Egypt where the wrongdoer, a member of nobility, was
accused of magic, and ordered to take his own life. During this period non-nobility
was usually killed with an ax.
In the 14th Century BC, the Hittite Code also prescribed the death penalty.
The 7th Century BC Draconian Code of Athens made death the penalty for every
crime committed. In the 5th Century BC, the Roman law of the Twelve Tablets
codified the death penalty. Again, the death penalty was different for nobility,
freemen and slaves and was punishment for crimes such as the publication of libels
and insulting songs, the cutting or grazing of crops planted by a farmer, the burning
of a house or a stack of corn near a house, cheating by a patron of his client,
perjury, making disturbances at night in the city, willful murder of a freeman or a
parent, or theft by a slave. Death was often cruel and included crucifixion, drowning
at sea, burial alive, beating to death, and impalement (often used by Nero). The
Romans had a curious punishment for parricides (murder of a parent): the
condemned was submersed in water in a sack, which also contained a dog, a
rooster, a viper and an ape. The most notorious death execution in BC was about
399 BC when the Greek philosopher Socrates was required to drink poison for
heresy and corruption of youth
Mosaic Law codified many capital crimes. In fact, there is evidence that Jews
used many different techniques including stoning, hanging, beheading, crucifixion
(copied from the Romans), throwing the criminal from a rock, and sawing asunder.
The most infamous execution of history occurred approximately 29 AD with the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside Jerusalem. About 300 years later, the Emperor
Constantine, after converting to Christianity, abolished crucifixion and other cruel
death penalties in the Roman Empire. In 438, the Code of Theodosius made more
than 80 crimes punishable by death.
Britain influenced the colonies more than any other country and has a long
history of punishment by death. About 450 BC, the death penalty was often
enforced by throwing the condemned into a quagmire. By the 10th Century,
hanging from gallows was the most frequent execution method. William the
Conqueror opposed taking life except in war, and ordered no person to be hanged
or executed for any offense. However, he allowed criminals to be mutilated for their
crimes. During the middle ages, capital punishment was accompanied by torture.
Most barons had a drowning pit as well as gallows and they were used for major as
well as minor crimes. For example, in 1279, two hundred and eighty nine Jews were
hanged for clipping coin. Under Edward I, two gatekeepers were killed because the

city gate had not been closed in time to prevent the escape of an accused murderer.
Burning was the punishment for women's high treason and men were hanged,
drawn and quartered. Beheading was generally accepted for the upper classes. One
could be burned for marrying a Jew. Pressing became the penalty for those who
would not confess to their crimes. The executioner placed heavy weights on the
victim's chest. On the first day he gave the victim a small quantity of bread, on the
second day a small drink of bad water, and so on until he confessed or died. Under
the reign of Henry VIII, the numbers of those put to death are estimated as high as
72,000. Boiling to death was another penalty approved in 1531, and there are
records to show some people boiled for up to two hours before death took them.
When a woman was burned, the executioner tied a rope around her neck when she
was tied to the stake. When the flames reached her she could be strangled from
outside the ring of fire. However, this often failed and many were literally burnt
alive.
In Britain, the number of capital offenses continually increased until the
1700's when two hundred and twenty-two crimes were punishable by death. These
included stealing from a house in the amount of forty shillings, stealing from a shop
the value of five shillings, robbing a rabbit warren, cutting down a tree, and
counterfeiting tax stamps. However, juries tended not to convict when the penalty
was great and the crime was not. Reforms began to take place. In 1823, five laws
passed, exempting about a hundred crimes from the death [penalty]. Between 1832
and 1837, many capital offenses were swept away. In 1840, there was a failed
attempt to abolish all capital punishment. Through the nineteenth and twentieth
centurys, more and more capital punishments were abolished, not only in Britain,
but also all across Europe, until today only a few European countries retain the
death penalty.
On Crimes and Punishment, published in English in 1767 by the Italian jurist
Cesare Beccaria, whose exposition on abolishing capital punishment was the most
influential of the time, had an especially strong impact. He theorized that there was
no justification for the taking of life by the state. He said that the death penalty was
"a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as
necessary, or useful to the general good." He asked the question what if it can be
shown not to be necessary or useful? His essay conceded that the only time a death
was necessary was when only one's death could insure the security of a nation -which would be rare and only in cases of absolute anarchy or when a nation was on
the verge of losing its liberty. He said that the history of using punishment by death
(e.g., the Romans, 20 years of Czaress Elizabeth) had not prevented determined
men from injuring society and that death was only a "momentary spectacle, and
therefore a less efficacious method of deterring others, than the continued example
of a man deprived of his liberty...."

HISTORY OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

The imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive
history. For the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used to curtail the liberties,
freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death
penalty was reimposed as a knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as
rising criminality in the country.
During the Spanish period, colonizers brought with them medieval Europes
penal system, including executions. Capital punishment during the early Spanish
Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying,
garrote, 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 garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30,
1896. All of them are now enshrined as heroes.
Capital punishment was first abolished in the Philippines in 1987 through
changes to the Constitution; it was the first country in Asia to abolish capital
punishment. It was reinstated in December 1993 through Republic Act No. 7659,
which allowed capital punishment for "heinous crimes" following claims of a national
crime spree. In 1999 the lethal injection was approved as the method of execution
through Republic Act No. 8177. On March 24, 2000 President Joseph Estrada called
for a moratorium on executions to honour the birth of Christ; executions were
resumed a year later.
Capital punishment was reabolished through Republic Act No. 9346, which
was signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 24, 2006. The bill followed
a vote held in Congress earlier in the same month which overwhelmingly supported
that the practice be abolished. The penalties of life imprisonment and reclusion
perpetua (indeterminate sentence, 30-year minimum) replaced the death penalty.
The sentences of the 1,230 death row inmates were commuted to life imprisonment
in April, in what Amnesty International believes to be the "largest ever commutation
of death sentences".

Evangelium Vitae (John Paul II)

No effort should be spared to eliminate legalized crime or at least to

limit the damage caused by these laws, but with the vivid awareness of
the radical duty to respect every human being's right to life from
conception until natural death, including the life of the lowliest and the
least gifted.

Should never come to "the extreme of executing the offender except in

cases of absolute necessity, when it would not be possible otherwise
to defend society".It likewise points out that "today however, as a result of
steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases
are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (death penalty is allowed
if and only if the offender poses great threat to the society that the
government can no longer provide protection. However this case is described
as very rare so imposition of capital punishment is of no need. Church is still
against but with exceptions)

Following the publication of the evangelium vitae, the matter was taken in
Fifth Session of the UN Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
As a final compromise, the resolution, as adopted, "takes note with
appreciation of the continuing process towards worldwide abolition
of the death penalty". On the other hand, the proposal of a abolishment
on capital punishment, presented to the General Assembly in November
1999, was postponed in the face of strong opposition from many
countries.

Spiritual decay has also become a characteristic of the post-communist

countries. The following factors are evidence: death penalties, crimes all of
these actions are the denial of life's saintliness and untouchability. The
spiritual decay is confirmed by the fact that people no longer care so
much for their life. The distorted concept of liberty by thinking that
everything is allowed

Culture of death - a secularized vision of freedom to act subjectively

according to ephemeral models like pleasure and fleeting happiness,

rather than adhering to values such as the objective truth and real
happiness. Ethical relativism is derived from this secularized vision.
Pope Francis

Opposes death penalty because it neglects human dignity.

CCC

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT You shall not kill. You have heard that it was
said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall b liable to
judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall
be liable to judgment. Every human life, from the moment of conception
until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for
its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can
under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to
destroy an innocent human being.

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception

to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that
constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double
effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . .
The one is intended, the other is not

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully
determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude
recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of
effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.\ If, however,
non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety
from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these
are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and
more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to

safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to
the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so
without harming the rights and obligations of other men and
societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and
moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death
Bible

The Old Testament Law prescribed the death penalty for an extensive list of crimes
including:

Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)

Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)

Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)

Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)

Witchcraft and sorcery

13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)

Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)

Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)

Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)

Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)

Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)

Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)

Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)

Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)

False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)

Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)

False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:1321)

Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her
betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

(Exodus

22:18, Leviticus

20:27, Deuteronomy

The New Testament

Jesus said His mission was not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew
5:17-20). However, He and His apostles greatly modified our understanding
of God's intentions.

Love is the principle that must guide all our actions (Matthew 5:43-48, Mark
12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14). Christians are
bound by Jesus' commands to "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your
neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:34-40).

We are no longer bound by the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:1617, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21).

Jesus flatly rejected the Old Testament principle of taking equal

revenge for a wrong done (Matthew 5:38-41, Luke 9:52-56). He also
said that we are all sinners and do not have the right to pass
judgment on one another (Matthew 7:1-5
EXAMPLE:

In the case of a woman caught in adultery (a capital offense), Jesus said to

those who wanted to stone her to death, "Let anyone among you who is
without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." ( John 8:7-11)

The apostle Paul also warned against taking revenge for a wrong done
(Romans 12:17-21, 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Likewise, the apostle Peter warned
us not to repay evil with evil (1 Peter 3:9).

Top 10 Pros and Cons

Should the death penalty be allowed?
PRO Death Penalty

CON Death Penalty

1. Morality

PRO: "The crimes of rape, torture, treason,

kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on
a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably
true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But

CON: "Ultimately, the moral question surrounding

capital punishment in America has less to do with
whether those convicted of violent crime deserve
to die than with whether state and federal

communities would plunge into anarchy if they

could not act on moral assumptions less certain
than that the sun will rise in the east and set in
the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death
penalty is inherently immoral because
governments should never take human life, no
matter what the provocation. But that is an article
of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors
human dignity by treating the defendant as a free
moral actor able to control his own destiny for
good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal
with no moral sense."

governments deserve to kill those whom it has

imprisoned. The legacy of racial apartheid, racial
bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably
evident in the administration of capital
punishment in America. Death sentences are
imposed in a criminal justice system that treats
you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are
poor and innocent. This is an immoral condition
that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral
grounds not only defensible but necessary for
those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust
administration of punishment."

Bruce Fein, JD
Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to
the Center for Law and Accountability
"Individual Rights and Responsibility - The Death
Penalty, But Sparingly," www.aba.org
June 17, 2008

Bryan Stevenson, JD
Professor of Law at New York University School
of Law
"Close to Death: Reflections on Race and Capital
Punishment in America," from Debating the
Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital
Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make
Their Best Case
2004

2. Constitutionality
PRO: "Simply because an execution method may
result in pain, either by accident or as an
inescapable consequence of death, does not
establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of
harm' [quoting the opinion of the Court
from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846
(1994)] that qualifies as cruel and unusual...
Kentucky has adopted a method of execution
believed to be the most humane available, one it
shares with 35 other States... Kentucky's decision
to adhere to its protocol cannot be viewed as
probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the
Eighth Amendment... Throughout our history,
whenever a method of execution has been
challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the
Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has
nonetheless steadily moved to more humane
methods of carrying out capital punishment."
Baze v. Rees (529 KB)
US Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief

CON: "Death is... an unusually severe

punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and
in its enormity... The fatal constitutional infirmity in
the punishment of death is that it treats 'members
of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to
be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus
inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the
Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a
human being possessed of common human
dignity.' [quoting himself from Furman v. Georgia,
408 U.S. 238, 257 (1972)] As such it is a penalty
that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by
the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by
the [Clause].' [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v.
Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)] I therefore would
hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a
cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
Clause... I would set aside the death sentences
imposed... as violative of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments."

Justice John G. Roberts

Apr. 16, 2008

William J. Brennan, JD
Justice of the US Supreme Court
Dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia (347
KB)
July 2, 1976

3. Deterrence
PRO: "Common sense, lately bolstered by
statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter
murder... People fear nothing more than death.
Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than
the fear of death... life in prison is less feared.
Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to
life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life
sentence must be less deterrent than a death
sentence. And we must execute murderers as
long as it is merely possible that their execution
protects citizens from future murder."
Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD
Late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham
University
"For the Death Penalty," New York Times
Oct. 17, 1983

CON: "[T]here is no credible evidence that the

death penalty deters crime more effectively than
long terms of imprisonment. States that have
death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates
or murder rates than states without such laws.
And states that have abolished capital
punishment show no significant changes in either
crime or murder rates. The death penalty has no
deterrent effect. Claims that each execution
deters a certain number of murders have been
thoroughly discredited by social science
research."
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
"The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers,"
ACLU.org
Apr. 9, 2007

4. Retribution
PRO: "Society is justly ordered when each person
receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this
just order, for the criminal takes from people their
lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order
to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved
punishment protects society morally by restoring
this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price
equivalent to the harm he has done. This is
retribution, not to be confused with revenge,
which is guided by a different motive. In
retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation,
which answers injury with injury for public good...
Retribution is the primary purpose of just
punishment as such... [R]ehabilitation, protection,
and deterrence have a lesser status in
punishment than retribution."

CON: "Retribution is just another word for

revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the
lowest human emotions perhaps sometimes
understandable, but not really a rational response
to a critical situation. To kill the person who has
killed someone close to you is simply to continue
the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the
avenger as well as the offender. That this
execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is
a myth. Expressing ones violence simply
reinforces the desire to express it. Just as
expressing anger simply makes us more angry. It
does not drain away. It contaminates the
otherwise good will which any human being
needs to progress in love and understanding."

J. Budziszewski, PhD
Professor of Government and Philosophy at the
University of Texas at Austin
"Capital Punishment: The Case for
Justice,"OrthodoxyToday.org
Aug./Sep. 2004

Raymond A. Schroth, SJ
Jesuit Priest and Community Professor of the
Humanities at St. Peter's College
Email to ProCon.org
Sep. 5, 2008

5. Irrevocable Mistakes
PRO: "...No system of justice can produce results
which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will
be made in any system which relies upon human
testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to
uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of
justice rightfully demands a higher standard for
death penalty cases. However, the risk of making
a mistake with the extraordinary due process
applied in death penalty cases is very small, and
there is no credible evidence to show that any
innocent persons have been executed at least
since the death penalty was reactivated in
1976... The inevitability of a mistake should not
serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty
any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck
should make automobiles illegal..."
Steven D. Stewart, JD
Prosecuting Attorney for Clark County Indiana
Message on the Clark County Prosecutor website
accessed
Aug. 6, 2008

CON: "...Since the reinstatement of the modern

death penalty, 87 people have been freed from
death row because they were later proven
innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1
innocent person for every 7 persons executed.
When the consequences are life and death, we
need to demand the same standard for our
system of justice as we would for our airlines...It
is a central pillar of our criminal justice system
that it is better that many guilty people go free
than that one innocent should suffer... Let us
reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us
pause to be certain we do not kill a single
innocent person. This is really not too much to
ask for a civilized society."
Russ Feingold, JD
US Senator (D-WI)
introducing the "National Death Penalty
Moratorium Act of 2000"
April 26, 2000

6. Cost of Death vs. Life in Prison

PRO: "Many opponents present, as fact, that the
cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least
$2 million per case?), that we must choose life
without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for
50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements
may be entirely false. JFA [Justice for All]
estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty
cases. There is no question that the up front

CON: "In the course of my work, I believe I have

reviewed every state and federal study of the
costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years.
One element is common to all of these studies:
They all concluded that the cost of the death
penalty amounts to a net expense to the state
and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently,the
death penalty is clearly more expensive than a
system handling similar cases with a lesser

costs of the death penalty are significantly higher

than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also
appears to be no question that, over time,
equivalent LWOP cases are much more
expensive... than death penalty cases.
Opponents ludicrously claim that the death
penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than
LWOP."
Dudley Sharp
Director of Death Penalty Resources at Justice
for All
"Death Penalty and Sentencing
Information," Justice for All website
Oct. 1, 1997

punishment. [It] combines the costliest parts of

both punishments: lengthy and complicated death
penalty trials, followed by incarceration for life...
Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is
needed for a death penalty case, only more so:
More pre-trial time...
More experts...
Twice as many attorneys...
Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one
for guilt and one for punishment.
And then will come a series of appeals during
which the inmates are held in the high security of
death row."
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD
Executive Director of the Death Penalty
Information Center
Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the
Colorado State House of Representatives
regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death
Penalty and Related Issues"
Feb. 7, 2007

7. Race
PRO: "[T]he fact that blacks and Hispanics are
charged with capital crimes out of proportion to
their numbers in the general population may
simply mean that blacks and Hispanics commit
capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers.
Capital criminals dont look like America... No one
is surprised to find more men than women in this
class. Nor is it a shock to find that this group
contains more twenty-year-olds than
septuagenarians. And if as the left tirelessly
maintains poverty breeds crime, and if as it
tiresomely maintains the poor are
disproportionately minority, then it must follow
as the left entirely denies that minorities will be
'overrepresented' among criminals."
Roger Clegg, JD
General Counsel at the Center for Equal
Opportunity
"The Color of Death: Does the Death Penalty
Discriminate?, National Review Online

CON: "Despite the fact that African Americans

make up only 13 percent of the nations
population, almost 50 percent of those currently
on the federal death row are African American.
And even though only three people have been
executed under the federal death penalty in the
modern era, two of them have been racial
minorities. Furthermore, all six of the next
scheduled executions are African Americans. The
U.S. Department of Justices own figures reveal
that between 2001 and 2006, 48 percent of
defendants in federal cases in which the death
penalty was sought were African Americans the
biggest argument against the death penalty is that
it is handed out in a biased, racially disparate
manner."
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP)
"NAACP Remains Steadfast in Ending Death
Penalty & Fighting Injustice in America's Justice

June 11, 2001

System, NAACP website

June 28, 2007

8. Income Level
PRO: "The next urban legend is that of the
threadbare but plucky public defender fighting
against all odds against a team of sleek, heavilyfunded prosecutors with limitless resources. The
reality in the 21st century is startlingly different...
the past few decades have seen the
establishment of public defender systems that in
many cases rival some of the best lawyers
retained privately... Many giant silk-stocking law
firms in large cities across America not only
provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but
also offer partnerships to lawyers whose sole job
is to promote indigent capital defense."
Joshua Marquis, JD
District Attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon
"The Myth of Innocence, Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology
Mar. 31, 2005

CON: "Who pays the ultimate penalty for crimes?

The poor. Who gets the death penalty? The poor.
After all the rhetoric that goes on in legislative
assemblies, in the end, when the net is cast out, it
is the poor who are selected to die in this country.
And why do poor people get the death penalty? It
has everything to do with the kind of defense they
get. Money gets you good defense. That's why
you'll never see an O.J. Simpson on death row.
As the saying goes: 'Capital punishment means
them without the capital get the punishment.'"
Helen Prejean, MA
Anti-death penalty activist and author of Dead
Man Walking
"Would Jesus Pull the Switch?, Salt of the Earth
1997

9. Attorney Quality
PRO: "Defense attorneys... routinely file all
manner of motions and objections to protect their
clients from conviction. Attorneys know their trial
tactics will be thoroughly scrutinized on appeal,
so every effort is made to avoid error, ensuring
yet another level of protection for the defendant.
They [death penalty opponents]... have painted a
picture of incompetent defense lawyers, sleeping
throughout the trial, or innocent men being
executed. Their accusations receive wide media
coverage, resulting in a near-daily onslaught on
the death penalty. Yet, through all the hysteria,
jurors continue to perform their responsibilities
and return death sentences."
California District Attorneys Association
(CDAA)
"Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death

CON: "[A] shocking two out of three death penalty

convictions have been overturned on appeal
because of police and prosecutorial misconduct,
as well as serious errors by incompetent courtappointed defense attorneys with little experience
in trying capital cases. How can we contend that
we provide equal justice under the law when we
do not provide adequate representation to the
poor in cases where a life hangs in the
balance? We, the Congress, must bear our share
of responsibility for this deplorable situation. In
short, while others, like Governor Ryan in Illinois,
have recognized the flaws in the death penalty,
the Congress still just doesn't get it. This system
is broken."
John Conyers, Jr., JD
US Congressman (D-MI)

Penalty, www.cdaa.org
Mar. 2003

Hearing for the Innocence Protection Act of 2000

before the Subcommittee on Crime of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives
June 20, 2000

10. Physicians at Executions

PRO: "Accepting capital punishment in principle
means accepting it in practice, whether by the
hand of a physician or anyone else... If one finds
the practice too brutal, one must either reject it in
principle or seek to mitigate its brutality. If one
chooses the latter option, then the participation of
physicians seems more humane than delegating
the deed to prison wardens, for by condoning the
participation of untrained people who could inflict
needless suffering that we physicians might have
prevented, we are just as responsible as if we
had inflicted the suffering ourselves. The AMA
[American Medical Association] position should
be changed either to permit physician
participation or to advocate the abolition of capital
punishment. The hypocritical attitude of 'My
hands are clean let the spectacle proceed' only
leads to needless human suffering."
Bruce E. Ellerin, MD, JD
Doctor of Oncology Radiation at Sierra Providence
Health Network
Response letter to the New England Journal of
Medicine regarding an article titled "When Law and
Ethics Collide Why Physicians Participate in
Executions," by Atul Gawande, MD
July 6, 2006

PRO Death Penalty

WHY

CON: "The American Medical Association's policy

is clear and unambiguous... requiring physicians
to participate in executions violates their oath to
protect lives and erodes public confidence in the
medical profession. A physician is a member of a
profession dedicated to preserving life... The use
of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for
purposes other than promoting an individual's
health and welfare undermines a basic ethical
foundation of medicine first, do no harm. The
guidelines in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics
address physician participation in executions
involving lethal injection. The ethical opinion
explicitly prohibits selecting injection sites for
executions by lethal injection, starting intravenous
lines, prescribing, administering, or supervising
the use of lethal drugs, monitoring vital signs, on
site or remotely, and declaring death."
American Medical Association (AMA)
"AMA: Physician Participation in Lethal Injection
Violates Medical Ethics," press release from the
AMA website
July 17, 2006

CON Death Penalty

SHOULD WE PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE OF DEATH PENALTY?

The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system
The poor and the defenseless may be most prone to this.
The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity

 The death penalty does not deter crime effectively

Since we are living in a democratic country, we can use our voices as citizens of
the country to prevent the passing of death penalty as a law.

The following are related articles and opinions about death penalty:

Should the Philippines bring back the death penalty?

The premise of Senator Sotto that the death penalty should come back because the
crime rates have been increasingof heinous crimesis not supported by facts.
That's number one.
Number two: This is the third time we've talked about death penalty and it's the
same arguments except that, since the time we last talked about it, 2003 or 2004,
many studies have come out showing that indeed, death penalty has a deterrent
effect.
The deterrent effect is not the only reason why there is controversy about death
penalty. There is, too, the morality of the situation. When one takes a life or when
one destroys a life, should one's life be destroyed? Well, if you are in the Old
Testament, yes it should; when you are in the New Testament, no it should not. So
there is controversy.

But even if there is no controversy, even if there is no deterrent effect, is the death
penalty proper now at this time for the Philippines? And the answer is, No. Why?
Because we have a flawed criminal justice system which does not guarantee that it
is the guilty one who is convicted and the innocent one is freed.
Bakit? When we live in a justice system where hindi nahuhuli 'yung guilty or nakakaeskapo sila or nakakabili sila ng magandang decision? Worse, we live in a system
where innocent people get convicted because wala silang access to legal services.
Ayan ba ang gusto natinthat ten guilty men go free and even more innocent men
get convicted? Hindi puwede yan.
This is the only time na agree ako na makalusot ang pasaway because the decision
is irreversible. 'Pag nabitay ang innocent person, that's the end.
Forgive me for allowing pasaways to go ahead because there are so many innocent
persons that may indeed be punished unjustly.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/349316/opinion/bawal-ang-pasawayshould-the-philippines-bring-back-the-death-penalty
Crimes and the death penalty
MANILA Mayor Joseph Estrada proposed the restoration of the death penalty last
week. He was moved by the gruesome crime committed by a drug addict pedicab
driver who raped and then killed a six-year-old girl.
Whenever heinous crimes proliferate and get broadcast-media attention, calls for
the return of the death penalty increase. Also, when the corruption of government
officials of the massiveness and extent of the Napoles PDAF scammake the
people squirm with disgust and scream in anger, more people shout Execute the
plunderers!
The 1986 Constitution abolishes the death penalty. Guided by the Constitution the
state did not execute anyone on death row during the term of President Cory
Aquino. But, in the absence of an enabling law to make the Constitutional ban on
state executions, President Fidel Ramos restored the death penalty in 1993.
Ironically, Mayor Estrada, who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder
charges (some say these were false accusations supported by fraudulent evidence
and mendacious testimonies), could have been executed had Congress not passed
a law and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed R.A. 9346 abolishing the death
penalty and making life imprisonment the highest punishment.
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. opposes the restoration of the death penalty so it
does not look like any bill with that aim will reach first base. The Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines, according to Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of
the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, continues to oppose the death
penalty.

Fr. Castro reminded Mr. Estrada that ending the life of the criminal does not bring
back the life taken away. The Church wishes Gods love to govern the treatment of
even the worst criminal. Its way is to help criminals become truly contrite, do
everything to make up for the evil they have done and lead a life that would
henceforth lead them to heaven by being sacrificial in doing good to others.
Innocents sell themselves to murderers
One of the Roman Catholic Churchs reasons for rejecting the death penalty is that
in an imperfect judicial system many persons convicted and could be put on death
row are innocent. The conviction of the innocent happens in our country not only
because of positive efforts of unjust parties to find someone they hate guilty, and
not only because some fiscals or judges are incompetent or corrupt. It happens also
because of the noble desire of dirt-poor fathers to earn what they think is big money
they can leave their families. They own up to murders rich men have committed
and what they are paid, a big sum in their poverty-stricken circumstances, is not
even half the value of the oldest car the rich murderer owns.
The Church rejoiced when our current, the 1896, Constitution abolished the death
penalty for it was, in the words of a former CBCP president, Bishop Carmelo Morelos
of the Butuan Diocese in Mindanao, was a very big step towards a practical
recognition of the dignity of every human being created to the image and likeness
of God, and of the value of human life from its conception to its natural end.
The Catholic Church has always taught that poverty, ignorance and lack of
education and lack of formation in virtues are the root causes of criminality. If the
state pays more attention to these basic needs of human beings there would be less
crimes. There would be no need to try scaring criminals into behaving well with the
threat of being put to death by the government.
The fact, however, is that no conclusive evidence and statistics have satisfactorily
proved that executing criminals deters other criminals. Statistics show that most
violent and fatal crimes are committed by persons in a state of irrationality. In other
words the criminal is not in his right mind. Therefore, he or
she cannot be logically or morally be held accountable for his crime. We stand with
the Church in rejecting the restoration of the death penalty.
Death penalty opponents issue warning in the Philippines
Death penalty opponents have hit out at a senators attempt to restore capital
punishment, saying many innocent people would be executed as a result of the
Philippines flawed legal system.
The Coalition Against the Death Penalty said on Tuesday it plans to highlight the
cases of at least 10 people it says were wrongfully convicted as part of its efforts to
stop reintroduction of the death penalty.

"There are documents that will detail that these people were wrongfully convicted,"
Rodolfo Diamante, a coalition member and executive secretary of the Episcopal
Commission on Prison Pastoral Care, said at a media forum in Manila.
Senator Vicente Sotto III last week filed a bill seeking the revival of the Death
Penalty Law that allows the use of lethal injection for judicial executions.
The House of Representatives has already approved a bill that would reinstate the
death penalty for drug traffickers but the Senate is yet to act on it.
Both houses would need to approve reinstatement for executions to resume.
The Philippines placed a moratorium on capital punishment in 2001 and five years
later downgraded the sentences of 1,230 death-row inmates to life imprisonment in
what Amnesty International described as the "largest ever commutation of death
sentences".
But a series of shocking crimes has sparked calls for capital punishment to be
reinstated, polarizing predominantly Catholic Filipino society.
Manila Mayor and former president Joseph Estrada expressed support for the revival
of the death penalty after a pedicab driver admitted to the rape and killing of a sixyear-old girl in Manila during the Feast of Santa Nino last month.
There have also been increasing calls among the public for the restoration of capital
punishment among those who say it would deter serious criminals, while others
remain opposed on religious and humanitarian grounds.
President Benigno Aquino has expressed hesitation on restoring capital punishment,
saying it needs "extensive consultation.
"The death penalty is irreversible. Once imposed, you can't overturn it. And then, as
we all know, our criminal justice system still has a lot flaws. So, what if we falsely
convict?" said Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. The Church has largely been against
reviving capital punishment although there are divisions.
Father Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the Episcopal Commission on Family
and Life of the Catholic of the bishops' conference, said the Church supports
"restorative justice".
"A life lost due to crime cannot be restored by ending the life of a criminal," he said.
Bishop Efraim Tendero of the Philippine Council for Evangelical Churches has
disagreed, arguing that use of the death penalty "is biblical, but must be balanced
by a reliable judicial system.