DEATH PENALTY

First of all, I would like to define the death penalty. Death penalty is when someone is put to
death using different types of methods, for a serious crime such as murder, rape and drug dealing. It is
also known as capital punishment, which comes from the Latin word ‘capital’ meaning ‘regarding the
head’. So therefore the most common way of capital punishment is hanging or decapitating. Although
many countries refrain from using capital punishment, many countries still practice it. Countries like
USA, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. still use capital punishment. In my opinion, I personally agree with capital
punishment as it creates a sense of fear in the minds of the criminals, so he/she will think twice before
committing a crime. It also makes the family of the victim get justice and they will be satisfied with the
decision. If the prisoner is let go of, then he/she will commit the crime again without fearing for his/her
death. “Justice requires punishing the guilty even if only some can be punished and sparing the innocent,
even if all are not spared. Morally, justice must always be preferred to equality. Justice cannot ever
permit sparing some guilty person, or punishing some innocent ones, for the sake of equality-because
others have been spared or punished. In practice, penalties could never be applied if we insisted that they
can be inflicted on only a guilty person unless we are able to make sure that they are equally applied to all
other guilty persons. Anyone familiar with the law enforcement knows that punishments can be inflicted
only on an unavoidable “shudder” selection of the guilty (Bedau, H., 1977).

Death penalty is a kind of capital punishment which refers to the sentence of death over a
person who has been decided by the government as guilty of committing capital crimes or offences. Death
penalty in the Philippines is stated on the Republic Act No. 7659 which is an act to impose the death
penalty for certain heinous crimes, amending for that purpose the revised penal laws, as amended, other
special penal laws, and for other purposes. The death penalty can be traced back during the Pre-Spanish
time where Filipinos although infrequent, is already practicing it. The Spanish also imposed it on locals
who rebelled against them and it was retained during the American period. The Martial Law in 1965-
1986, even though it was abolished during Cory Aquino’s term, it was re-imposed when Ramos stepped
into the presidency. It was also present in Estrada and Arroyo’s term. This paper present the pro and con
of death penalty in the Philippines, even though the death penalty is important to minimize the persons
who have got a very hard crimes, but death penalty violates the person to live. The overwhelming
conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than
a sentence of life in prison. In fact some criminologists maintain that the death penalty has the opposite
effect; that is society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of
more murder. Society has always used punishment is discourage would be criminals from unlawful
action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment
available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentence to death and executed,
potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life. Retribution is another
word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs
us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response. The emotional impulse for
revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment. to higher principles
that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives
for revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. The notion of an eye for an eye,
or a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. When someone takes a life, the balance
of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the
taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is
an intolerable crime which will be punishment in kind. Retribution has its basis in religious values, which
have historically maintained that it is proper to take an ‘’eye for an eye’’ and a life. Offenders deserve the
worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. There is no proof that any
innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our
death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning
innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If
improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as
DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to
abolish the death penalty. Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released
from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable
sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made.
There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since
1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged.

Death penalty shows justice. There will be justice when we punish the guilty. It shows quality,
on T.V I have seen people being interviewed because one or some of their relatives died. There are crying
for help and wanting justice for the death of their loved ones. I know for sure that justice can only be the
solution for them to be relieved. A serious crimes must have serious penalty and that is death. Justice can
dignify a person.