You are on page 1of 3

There are many ways aspects of the president`s solution to violence and crime that i can understand and

even support..Placing curfews on teenagers, alcohol consumption, and more are smart preventive
measures..

However, having said all that, I dont believe that SHOOT TO KILL is the way to achieve the goal of a
safer country. When did fighting fire with fire ever actually work in the long run? There has to be a better
middle ground. If the president`s mandate of shoot to kill is followed what we would end up with are
even more vigilantes walking the streets with a convoluted sense of wild wild west justice. This is not the
way to make things safe again, In fact, things might get even more dangerous.

We all want to live in a safe society. We want to able to raise the children in a safer world. I commend
the president on his mission to stamp our crime, drugs and violence in the philippines. On the note, we
are all aligned in wanting a better country. However, there has to be a way to do this while letting DUE
PROCESS and the rule of law prevail. I remember the latin legal phrase-`Fiat iustitia ruat carlum` which
translate into let justice be done though the heavens fall. Fair justice shoul always prevail, especially
when lives are at stake.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

Now in the term of our president Mr.Rodrigo Duterte it is the most scary and strict because killings are
everywhere.Theres no certain place in killings here in the philippines, although it is good for our country
because the drug lords, drug addicts will be lessen or gone but sometimes the police did not give a
chance to the other drug pusher, sometimes the other police officer use their power/authority to kill
also an innocent one. Mr. Rodrigo Duterte and Mr. Rolando Dela Rosa are good tandem because they are
both hate drugs.

We all know that putting to an end the lives of people is not good, but how about the victims of the
pushers and drug Lords? Is there have a justice for an innocent children being rape because of drug
addicts, the children using drugs even at the young age? They kill, steal, hold-up, push drugs etc..are we
give them a considerable because they are not in the government? No! they committed crimes. The
authorities give them the chance to surrender all of them so that theyre not getting hurt but
unfortunately some of them are trying to fight against the authorities so that they are not being caught
and put to jail. So it is their fault why some of them experience even into death.

Our governments doing is to clean and protect our country, so we should not blame them of what
happen in our country today because they only serving and doing their job and wasting their lives too for
our community and the people.
Combining the terms and the definitions together, extra-judicial killing means illegally killing a person.
The State, the government, and especially the Supreme Court should relay full authorization to the
police, military or any State officials so that this extra-judicial killing can be a judicial one.

Despite the fact that the President Duterte himself condones the killings, although not publicly admitting
such, the killings of drug dealers shall remain illegal unless agreed upon by the whole of legislative,
executive, and judicial departments.

What are the pros and cons of the extra-judicial murder of thousands of drug dealers in the Philippines?

Pros:

Fast (and probably efficient) way to eliminate these illegal drugs and eradicate matrices of syndicates
that produce, buy, and sell said harmful substances, considering our justice system is slow as fuck (it has
been recently reported that piles atop piles of criminal cases remain unsolved)[1]

An effective alternative to the lacking number of prisons and rehabilitation areas in the country,
considering a lot of factors causal to unwanted consequences such as government officials that
misappropriate funds leading to discontinued building projects leading to populated prisons and rehab
centers.

Respects the majority lot of right to life. No more illegal drugs no more possible normalization of
consuming said substances less people harmed productive society maximization of quality of
life.

Deterrence. Oh no, someone got killed for consuming illegal drugs! OHH NOOO!!! I WILL NOT DO THAT!
I DONT WANT TO GET KILLED! I LOVE MY LIFEEEE!!!

Cons:

Abuse of authority. Just weeks ago, we have witnessed the killings of students Kian delos Santos and Carl
Arnaiz[2]. There could be one truth to what really happened, but as of now, we couldnt ascertain,
unfortunately. We could guess. We could assume. But see, Duterte has given shoot-to-kill orders to
police and would defend them[3].

Threat of fascism, mainly caused by the abuse of authority. Look back at history and the grave
consequences the fascist ideology has brought.
DOES NOT respect right to life. I mean, youre not given a chance to defend yourself, to be free and start
a new life all that are permanently alienated from you once you get a shot in the back either because
youre suspected of being involved in drugs or on the watch list[4] or actually involved but still wasnt
able to undergo due process as one of our rights according to the Constitution. [5]

DOES NOT respect other human rights. If you dont respect right to life, you dont respect the rest of the
rights. Kind of illogical at a second glance, yes, but I based it on the thought that rights is inherent to life.

Inevitable wrong convictions. Just like in the death penalty, it couldnt be avoided that one time, a victim
of extra-judicial killings would later be found innocent after days/weeks/years.

Giving your country a bad reputation with constant condemnation from rights groups, United Nations[6],
and the former President Barack Obama himself[7]yet your President still enforces it.