1
Gilbert P. Felongco, Correspondent
Manila: The Philippine government will continue with its
plan to make the death penalty part of its punitive
recourse, despite Pope Francis’ declaration that capital
punishment is “unacceptable” in all cases, Presidential
Spokesperson Harry Roque said.
“It is still the priority of the administration to re-impose
the death penalty for serious drug-related offences,”
Roque said in a press briefing in Malaybalay, Bukidnon on
Friday.
However, Roque added, the decision on re-imposing the
capital punishment remains with the Senate and House
on whether it will recall a 1993 law that provides for such
penal option.
The Philippines has had an on and off penchant with the
death penalty.
The country carried out judicial executions during the
1970s when the entire archipelago was under martial law
and crime was a serious concern.
The 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty but it
was reintroduced in 1993 and the first person to be
meted the punishment in 1998 was Leo Echegaray who
was found guilty of raping his 10-year-old step daughter.
In 2006, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
enacted a law: Republic Act Number 9346 that abolished
the death penalty.
Arroyo at that time was concerned that having the death
penalty as part of the country’s judicial recourse would
weaken the country’s position in asking for clemency for
overseas Filipino workers who are on death row abroad.
State vs Church
President Rodrigo Duterte said he wants the death
penalty reimposed to serve as a deterrent against drug
crimes.
In March 2017, the Lower Chamber passed House Bill
4727 which seeks to reimpose death penalty. The fate of
a similar measure in Senate is unknown.
Last Thursday, Pope Francis declared death penalty
“inadmissible” under all circumstances. The Church
approved the revision opposing capital punishment as it
attacks the dignity of human beings and the sanctity of
human life.
Among the reasons for changing the teaching include:
the increasing effectiveness of detention systems,
growing understanding of the unchanging dignity of the
person, and leaving open the possibility of conversion to
the individual.
“Today, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity
of the person is not lost even after the commission of
very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has
emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed
by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention
have been developed, which ensure the due protection
of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively
deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption,” the
new Catechism says.
Jacqueline De Guia, spokesperson of Philippines’
independent Commission on Human Rights, hopes the
Senate will heed Pope Francis’ declaration on the death
penalty.

Yes to death penalty?
By Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan - February 4, 20193261
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
(http://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
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.
3
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.
Philippines: The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful
and ineffective response to drugs
7 March 2017, 13:19 UTC
The adoption of a draft law by the Philippine House of
Representatives to revive the death penalty sets the
country on a dangerous path in flagrant violation of its
international legal obligations, Amnesty International
said today.
“The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of
drugs is simply wrong. The resumption of executions will

not rid the Philippines of problems associated with drugs
or deter crime. It is an inhumane, ineffective punishment
and is never the solution. The Philippines’ attempts to
reintroduce it are clearly unlawful. This will just earn the
country notoriety as one of the few countries to revive
its horrific use,” said Champa Patel, Amnesty
International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Today, the House of Representatives of the Philippines
adopted on its third and final reading of House Bill 4727,
a measure put forward by President Duterte’s majority
coalition to reintroduce the death penalty.
The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of
drugs is simply wrong. The resumption of executions will
not rid the Philippines of problems associated with drugs
or deter crime. It is an inhumane, ineffective punishment
and is never the solution. The Philippines’ attempts to
reintroduce it are clearly unlawful
Champa Patel
The proposal was passed with 216 votes in favour, 54
against and one abstention. The Speaker of the House
openly threatened to strip members of Congress of key
positions if they dared to vote against the bill, or even
abstain from voting. The bill will now go to the Senate.
“The Senate is now the Philippines’ last real hope of
upholding its international obligations and rescuing the
country from this backwards step,” said Champa Patel.
The draft law has been passed at a time when the
country is reeling from a wave of more than 8,000 deaths,
many of them through extrajudicial executions in its “war
on drugs” since President Rodrigo Duterte came to
power on 30 June 2016.
Amnesty International is opposed to the death penalty
for all crimes and in all circumstances. Under
4
international law, the death penalty must be restricted
to most serious crimes, and drug related crimes do not
meet this threshold. There is also no evidence to show
that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect.
“The death penalty for alleged drug offenders, like
extrajudicial executions, violates international law,
deprives people of the right to life, and
disproportionately targets the poor,” said Champa Patel.
In 2007 the Philippines ratified an international treaty
that categorically prohibits executions and commits the
country to the abolition of the death penalty. Legally, this
obligation cannot be withdrawn at any time.
Since the death penalty was abolished in 2006, the
Philippines has been a strong advocate against capital
punishment and has championed several initiatives to
this end in international forums. It has also worked to
commute the death sentences imposed on Filipino
nationals abroad, such as overseas workers.
“If the Philippines authorities want to deal with the root
causes of drug-related offences, they should support
humane, voluntary, health-focused and evidence-based
policies as an alternative,” said Champa Patel.
Does the death penalty stop crime? Does it give victims
justice? Is there a humane way to execute? Get your facts
straight about the death penalty with Amnesty’s top 10
FAQs on capital punishment.
1. Why does Amnesty International oppose the death
penalty?
The death penalty violates the most fundamental human
right – the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman
and degrading punishment.

The death penalty is discriminatory. It is often used
against the most vulnerable in society, including the poor,
ethnic and religious minorities, and people with mental
disabilities. Some governments use it to silence their
opponents. Where justice systems are flawed and unfair
trials rife, the risk of executing an innocent person is ever
present.
When the death penalty is carried out, it is final. Mistakes
that are made cannot be unmade. An innocent person
may be released from prison for a crime they did not
commit, but an execution can never be reversed.
2. Don’t victims of violent crime and their families have a
right to justice?
They do. Those who have lost loved ones in terrible
crimes have a right to see the person responsible held to
account in a fair trial without recourse to the death
penalty. In opposing the death penalty, we are not trying
to minimize or condone crime. But as many families who
have lost loved ones have said, the death penalty cannot
genuinely relieve their suffering. It just extends that
suffering to the family of the condemned person.
Revenge is not the answer. The answer lies in reducing
violence, not causing more death.
Marie Deans, whose mother-in-law was murdered in
1972
3. If you kill someone else, don’t you deserve to die, too
– “an eye for an eye”?
No. Executing someone because they’ve taken
someone’s life is revenge, not justice.
An execution – or the threat of one –inflicts terrible
physical and psychological cruelty. Any society which
executes offenders is committing the same violence it
condemns.
4. Doesn’t the death penalty prevent crime?
5
Not according to the research. There is no credible
evidence that the death penalty deters crime more
effectively than a prison term. In fact, crime figures from
countries which have banned the death penalty have not
risen. In some cases they have actually gone down. In
Canada, the murder rate in 2008 was less than half that
in 1976 when the death penalty was abolished there.
5. What about capital punishment for terrorists?
Governments often resort to the death penalty in the
aftermath of violent attacks, to demonstrate they are
doing something to “protect” national security. But the
threat of execution is unlikely to stop men and women
prepared to die for their beliefs – for example, suicide
bombers. Executions are just as likely to create martyrs
whose memory becomes a rallying point for their
organizations.
People accused of “terrorism” are especially likely to be
sentenced to death after unfair trials. Many are
condemned on the basis of “confessions” extracted
through torture. In some cases, special or military courts
set up through counter-terrorism laws have sentenced
civilians to death, undermining international standards.
[The death penalty] is a cheap way for politically inclined
people to pretend to their fearful constituencies that
something is being done to combat crime.
Jan van Rooyen, South African law professor
6. Isn’t it better to execute someone than to lock them
up forever?
Every day, men, women, even children, await execution
on death row. Whatever their crime, whether they are
guilty or innocent, their lives are claimed by a system of
justice that values retribution over rehabilitation. As long
as a prisoner remains alive, he or she can hope for
rehabilitation, or to be exonerated if they are later found
to be innocent.
7. Is there a humane and painless way to execute a
person?

Any form of execution is inhumane. The lethal injection
is often touted as somehow more humane because, on
the surface at least, it appears less grotesque and
barbaric than other forms of execution such as
beheading, electrocution, gassing and hanging.
But the search for a “humane” way to kill people should
be seen for what it really is – an attempt to make
executions more palatable to the public in whose name
they are being carried out, and to make the governments
that execute appear less like killers themselves.
8. What business is it of Amnesty’s if different societies
want to use the death penalty?
Human rights – including the most basic right to life – are
universal and endorsed by the vast majority of countries
in the world. Our call to end the death penalty is
consistent with the mercy, compassion and forgiveness
that all major world religions emphasize. To date, 140
countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in
practice, demonstrating that the desire to end capital
punishment is shared by cultures and societies in almost
every region in the world.
Human rights apply to the best of us – and the worst of
us.
Amnesty International
9. What if public opinion is in favour of the death penalty?
Strong public support for the death penalty often goes
hand in hand with a lack of reliable information about it
– most often the mistaken belief that it will reduce crime.
Many governments are quick to promote this erroneous
belief even though there is no evidence to support it.
Crucial factors that underlie how the death penalty is
applied are often not understood. These include the risk
of executing an innocent person, the unfairness of trials,
and the discriminatory nature of the death penalty – all
of which contribute to a fully informed view of capital
punishment.
6
We believe governments need to be open about this
information, while promoting respect for human rights
through public education programmes. Only then can
there be meaningful debate on the death penalty.
Still the decision to execute someone cannot be decided
by public opinion. Governments must lead the way.
10. Is the battle to abolish the death penalty being won?
Yes. Today, two-thirds of countries in the world have
either abolished the death penalty outright, or no longer
use it in practice. Although there have been a few steps
backwards, these must be weighed up against the clear
worldwide trend towards abolition. In 2015 alone, Fiji,
Madagascar and Suriname all turned their backs on the
death penalty once and for all. Burkina Faso, Mongolia
and South Korea are on their way to doing the same.
Europe remains virtually free of the death penalty. And
the USA, historically one of the nations most reluctant to
give up the death penalty, is slowly turning against
capital punishment.
Death penalty should be revived
INTROSPECTIVE - Tony Katigbak (The Philippine Star) -
August 13, 2018 - 12:00am
I think it’s time for the government to revive the death
penalty in view of the rising heinous crimes being
perpetrated out on the streets and homes even in broad
daylight. Some of the murders take place in full view of
the public and there are others could be drug-induced.
Despite CCTV cameras on the streets, lampposts on roofs
of houses and shopping centers, the killers don’t seem to
mind being identified. Some of the criminals are paid for
their dastardly act, because they know that even if they
are caught alive they will spend time in prison and
eventually released or dug their way out of prison. Our
jails are already overcrowded so it makes sense to
dispose of first degree murderers to dispose of those

who are found by the judge of guilty beyond reasonable
doubt to execute them. It may not solve the crime
entirely, but the killers may have to think twice before
committing the crime.
Just recently, we had Indonesia and Singapore having
capital punishment in their constitution just like our
Southeast Asian neighbors. In fact we already had capital
punishment before until 2006 when president Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo abolished it. Now we are thinking of
reviving capital punishment led no less by the president
and two prominent legislators in Senate president Tito
Sotto and Sen. Manny Pacquiao which I believe will draw
huge supporters as he has many fans. I, myself, am in
favor of the death penalty. I hope capital punishment will
be passed into law during the Duterte administration.
In fact, I have to strongly agree that the death penalty
should be revived if we really want to make a dent in the
alarmingly high rise in crime in recent years. In the past,
criminals that were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of heinous crimes were sentenced to death by
lethal injection. And I feel that if this measure were once
again available in our judicial system then perhaps
criminals would have something to fear. I’ve said in
columns past that I think one of the reasons that
criminals commit crimes with abandon here is that they
are not afraid of facing consequences. They always feel
that they will get away with it. Perhaps a harder stance
on crime is required in order to make real change.
I may not completely eradicate crime. I’m pragmatic
enough to recognize that, but we’ve been hungry for
some real change when it comes to dealing out justice
and perhaps this could be a good first step.
Unfortunately I know that committing to capital
punishment also means committing to being able to
dispense justice fairly and truly. After all, when a human
is asked to pay the ultimate price for his crime, we have
to be sure that they are guilty 100 percent beyond
reasonable doubt.
7
That’s the one hurdle I feel the death penalty will face
should implementation come to pass. Not only are
criminals not afraid of the consequences of their actions
in the Philippines, but they also feel that they will get off
when it comes to prosecution. This is even truer if they
have money. In our country we have to face the fact that
money talks and sometimes even if a criminal is caught
red-handed, they manage to buy their way out. If capital
punishment is once again implemented, we have to be
sure that this can no longer happen. When it comes to
this kind of justice, it should be applicable to everyone or
no one. That is the only way it will truly work. After all,
look at the case of Mary Jane Veloso? After all the
protesting we did to save her life, we have to be just as
flexible when evidence proves that someone may not be
truly guilty.
The road to amending the justice system is definitely
going to be very long and very tedious. Corruption must
be weeded out and of course, many human rights
activists and the Catholic bishops will protest the return
of capital punishment, but I feel that, if paired with a just
and reliable system, it will do more good than harm.
After all, why side with the criminals who roam the
streets and commit crimes instead of victims who have
lost loved ones and have had their lives changed forever?
It’s time to pay the piper when it comes to heinous
crimes and high time to make criminals fear the
consequences of their actions.
Perhaps this way senseless violence can be avoided. I
read an editorial recently that spoke about the many acts
of violence people face on the road and I can’t help but
feel that these cases are ridiculous waste. Many of them
have even ended in someone losing their lives. What’s
astounding is that a lot of the perpetrators have the gall
to disobey road rules and then violently lash out when
caught in the act. What gives these terrible road rage
perpetrators the confidence to act so badly? It’s the fact
that so many of them get away with it with only a slap on
the wrist.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think road rage
criminals deserve the death penalty (unless they killed
someone of course – that would be a different story), but
I think that if we adjust the justice system to enforce
capital punishment than enforcing punishment for all
crimes should level up. I guess in general, I feel that we
need to enforce punishment better across all crimes and
that if this happens that I hope we would see a decrease
in violence and crime in the country.
Honestly, it astounds me how brazen criminals can be
with little to no regard for human life or safety. Be it
cases of riding in tandem, road rage gone bad, ATM
skimming crimes, or even just snatch and pull right on the
street in plain site the incidence of crime are rising at an
alarming rate and it’s become scary to even drive on Edsa
in broad daylight. We see more and more videos being
posted on social media sites warning us about new ways
criminals are committing crimes and it’s become
ridiculous already. What do we need to do to make our
society safe?
Again, I don’t think that re-implementing the death
penalty is going to fix it all, but I can’t help but feel it’s a
good first step because it will not only give criminals
something to fear, but it will force us to take a good long
and hard look at our justice system as well and fix what
needs to be fixed. After all, these steps will hand in hand
if capital punishment is back in the mix. It’s going to be a
very long process, but I think it’s time to bring back the
Old Testament message of “An eye for an eye.” It’s high
time criminals have something to fear again.
Philippine debate to restore death penalty hots up
Legislator quotes saints and the Bible to justify bringing
back executions Philippine debate to restore death
penalty hots up
Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo of Manila leads a
prayer for respect for life and human rights at the height
of calls for the revival of capital punishment in the
country and the spate of summary executions. (Photo by
Maria Tan)
8
Joe Torres, Manila
Philippines
February 3, 2017
A Philippine legislator quoted saints and the Bible to
justify the death penalty as plenary debates for the
revival of capital punishment for heinous and drug-
related crimes heat up in Congress.
Deputy Speaker Fred Castro, a lawyer, quoted St. Thomas
Aquinas to support arguments to press for the passage
of the controversial measure.
"[I]f a man be dangerous and infectious to the
community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy
and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard
the common good," Castro quoted St. Aquinas' Summa
Theologica.
The legislator argued that the Catholic saint and
theologian supported the killing of a criminal "if this is
necessary for the welfare of the whole community."
Castro, an ex-officio member of the House Committee on
Justice said, "criminals are having a field day" because of
the absence of capital punishment.
House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, the principal
proponent of the bill, appealed to legislators to be
reasonable and refrain from employing dilatory tactics to
stall the passage of the measure.
"Let's all be reasonable, we debate extensively, but at the
end of the day, we need to vote for it," he said, adding
that it is the "essence of democracy" that the majority
prevails.
Alvarez denied allegations that the House leadership is
rushing the passage of the measure.
The restoration of the death penalty is one of the
campaign promises of President Rodrigo Duterte to deter
crime.
Catholic teaching

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila issued a statement
on Feb. 2 forwarding arguments advanced by Catholic
Church leaders against the proposed measure.
He said studies around the world show that the death
penalty has not lessened violent crimes.
"The best approach is to address positively and
comprehensively the roots of crime of which offenders
have probably been victims themselves," said the
cardinal.
Among the "roots" he cited are a loss of moral values,
injustice, inequality, poverty, lack of access to food,
education, jobs and housing, proliferation of weapons,
drugs, pornography, and a loss of respect for sexuality.
Sign up to receive UCAN Daily Full Bulletin
Your email address
He said the church and the state "need to protect and
strengthen the basic unit of society, which is the family."
Cardinal Tagle also warned that the death penalty "might
legitimize the use of violence to deal with every
wrongdoing," saying that victims of crimes need "justice
and healing."
"We need to reform institutions so they would safeguard
justice while preventing the spread of a culture of
violence," he said.
Flawed justice system
Human rights groups and families of victims of abuses
also voiced their opposition to the proposal in Congress.
"The death penalty is essentially a legislative fiat to the
current spate of extrajudicial killings … which will mostly
affect the poor who have far less or no access to
resources to defend themselves before courts," said
Cristina Palabay, secretary-general of rights group
Karapatan.
She said under a flawed justice system the death penalty
is a "violation of the right to life and the absolute
prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
Palabay said the death penalty will also impact on human
rights defenders, activists and political dissenters, when
9
those in power to "criminalize the exercise of political
beliefs and political actions."
She noted that almost all political prisoners have been
charged with trumped up criminal offenses such as
murder, kidnapping, and even drug-related charges that
are punishable by death in the proposed measure.
Karapatan reported that at least 249 out of the 392
political prisoners were charged with "fabricated murder
charges” and were arrested and detained through "alias
warrants."
Evangeline Hernandez, chairwoman of the group
Hustisya, said her organization opposes the restoration
of the death penalty because it will "not give justice nor
is it a deterrent to crimes."
Hernandez, whose daughter Benjaline Hernandez was
killed by state forces in 2003, said the restoration of the
death penalty will only bring about more victims than
render justice.
"If the state cannot prosecute those who wronged the
people because they are in position or in power, who
then will suffer and be sentenced with death penalty?
Only the poor will become victims again," she said.
Senators vow to kill the measure
Several members of the Philippine Senate vowed to stop
the passage of the proposed measure.
"I am against death penalty, I will vote against it, and I
will convince others not to support it," said Senator
Francis Escudero, adding that strict implementation of
laws will address the problem of criminality.
At least nine senators have vowed to vote against the re-
imposition of the death penalty.
Senator Francis Panglinan of the Liberal Party said re-
imposing the death penalty "will not lead to more
convictions, nor will it ensure that cases will be decided
swiftly and the guilty punished."
"It is swift punishment and the immediate disposition of
cases pending before our courts, regardless of penalties
involved, and not the re-imposition of death penalty,
that will restore respect for the rule of law," he said.

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."
Death penalty pros and cons in the Philippines
By Marydel Mitch Flores - March 10, 2017060239
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
Death penalty pros and cons in the Philippines
Death penalty which is also known as "Capital
punishment" is a legal process where the state sends a
death row inmate to execution as their punishment for a
serious offense committed. Image Credit: Wikimedia
Commons
Death penalty which is also known as “Capital
punishment” is a legal process where the state sends a
death row inmate to execution as their punishment for a
serious offense committed.
Other countries still practiced this but it has been
abolished in United States and still observed in several
states. While death penalty in the Philippines, just passed
on its third and final reading that seeks the return of it
last Tuesday, March 07. There are still strong opinions
shared by both anti and pro- death penalty.
And since this has been a long standing argument
between two opposing parties. Here are the list of “Pros”
and “Cons” of death penalty.
PROS OF DEATH PENALTY
It daunt people to commit dreadful crimes l. Criminals
will get scared of committing crimes because they will
suffer such harsh punishment. The fear of suffering will
discouraged this potential criminals to commit crimes.
Death penalty costs the government less. compared to
the costs of life imprisonment because they will be given
10
the expenses of food, health care and other costs that
will sustain their lives. Some critics says that spending for
people who committed such heinous crimes is
impractical and just a waste of taxpayers’
Death Penalty will reduce the number of crime rate in the
country because criminals will just be taking advantage
of people without harsh punishments.
It is what hardened criminals deserve. Criminals become
bolder and careless to commit crimes knowing that they
will only be imprisoned that is why they are not scared of
repeating heinous crimes. Thus, these type of people
should be put to death to project the majority.
Death penalty is just punishable to drug related crimes
only, which was stated under the House Bill Number
4727. However, President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte
wants plunder, rape to be next in line among the heinous
crimes punishable with death penalty.
You may read: Duterte wants plunder, rape next on
death penalty
Here’s a video of lessons from death row inmates by
David R. Dow.
CONS OF DEATH PENALTY
There are innocent people wrongly executed. Critics
believed that they keep on sending innocent people who
are wrongly accused to death row and the sad thing
about this is that, innocence is proven after the execution
has been carried out.
Critics also argue that death penalty does not really deter
criminals from committing crimes, since there are
criminals who suffer from mental illness and death
sentence will not prevent them from doing things they
can no longer control without proper medication.
Pro death penalty believed that feeding the inmates is
much more expensive than death penalty. On contrary to
that, Anti- death penalty believes that the drug used in
 11

lethal injection and other expenses related to execution penalty at the federal level in the United States for
is much more costly. murder as well, along with treason, espionage, piracy,
certain drug-trafficking offenses, or the attempted
Death penalty is a form of revenge. While pro death
murder of a juror, court officer, or witness in some
penalty thinks that capital punishment is a form of death
situation.
retribution, Anti death penalty also believes that to
avenge a crime committed by individual may be
understandable yet killing someone is also
As of 2018, every prisoner under a federal death
unconstitutional. It is also a crime that is only masked by
sentence was convicted of aggravated murder. There
the term capital punishment but the reality is, it only
were 63 offenders on “death row” at the Federal Bureau
continues the series of violence.
of Prisons as of September 2018. The U.S. military has a
People who have been involved in the process of death death penalty as well, and the branches have executed
penalty suffer from depression out of guilt from having 135 people since 1916. That includes Private Eddie Slovik,
to end another person’s life. Former executioner once who was executed on January 31, 1945 under the
stated that people who participated in executions were conviction of desertion.
later destroyed, some of them turned to drugs and
alcohol to feel better.
There are passionate people on both sides of this debate,
It is a platform that is anti-poor because accused people
so it is imperative to take a look at the advantages and
who are poor are mostly the ones who get the death
disadvantages of the death penalty with an open mind
penalty, since these people lack finances to pay for a
whenever possible.
powerful defense attorneys.

It is not humanity and cannot be undone. Those innocent

criminals who got executed and then latter would have
proven the person’s innocence, he or she can never be
brought back to life anymore.
With the ongoing issue about death penalty, opinions
continues to be divided. Deciding which opinion is able
to prove a more logical perspective regarding on the
issue can be challenging with the disparate views of
proponents and opponents.
18 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Death Penalty
List of the Advantages of the Death Penalty
1. A sentence of life in prison is disproportionate to the
capital crime.
Almost all death sentences handed out by the United
States or state-level justice systems are for aggravated
murder. Only two people were on death row for a non-
murder offense when the Supreme Court last ruled on
the validity of the death penalty in 2008. Both inmates
were convicted of the aggravated rate of a child under
the age of 13, including Patrick Kennedy who was
sentenced for raping his step-daughter.

The death penalty, or “capital punishment” if one prefers

“As it relates to crimes against individuals… the death
a friendlier term, is the planned killing of an individual by
penalty should not be expanded to instances where the
a government or ruling entity in response to a crime. It is
victim’s life was not taken,” wrote Justice Anthony
considered the just punishment for a person legally
Kennedy in 2008 when the sentence was overturned. If a
convicted of an action which is deemed a safety threat to
convicted criminal receives life in prison for taking a life,
society.
proponents argue that this is not justice because the
outcome is disproportionate to the action taken.

Most states in the U.S. which allow for the death penalty
due so because of murder. Capital punishment is a legal

2. The death penalty can provide a deterrent against
violent crime.
When many criminologists define deterrence in terms of
the death penalty, they are looking at how the presence
of this sentencing can stop violent acts by preventing
someone to commit them in the first place. It becomes a
value proposition. Do I want to risk my life because I have
a willingness right now to take the life of another? In that
circumstance, 88% of criminologists agree that the
presence of the death penalty is not useful.
What we must look at for this advantage is the actual
convicted person. Capital punishment creates an
irreversible deterrent that the murderer will never get
the chance to take a life again. It is a form of
incapacitation that helps to protect society by preventing
future crime in this manner.
“Capital punishment is likely to deter more than other
punishments because people fear death more than
anything else,” said Ernest van den Haag, Professor of
Jurisprudence at Fordham University. “They fear most
death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the
courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter the
most.”
3. It doesn’t need to be carried out with brutality.
The focus of the death penalty in the United States today
is focused on ending life as quickly and as peacefully as
possible. That is why the process is typically carried out
through the use of a lethal injection, creating a medically-
imposed death that involves the least amount of pain
possible.
At various points in history, the death penalty was
carried out by beheading, stoning, crucifixion,
electrocution, shooting, or hanging. Saudi Arabia still
carries out sword-based executions, while India, Japan,
and Singapore use hanging. China uses a single shot to
the back of the head, while Indonesia uses a firing squad.
12
4. The death penalty does not re-victimize the affected
family.
There is rightful sympathy or empathy directed toward
the family of someone accused of a capital crime. These
people are losing a loved one because of this legal
structure. The family of the victim has also lost someone
as well. The person who does not deserve sympathy is
the criminal who decided to commit the capital act
(usually aggravated murder) in the first place. When the
death penalty is one of the possible consequences that
someone faces for their conduct, then it shields the
family of the victim from another form of victimization.
If given life without parole, there is always the possibility
that the criminal could discuss their side of the case,
describe the actions they took, or issue threats to other
members of the family. Capital punishment eventually
stops this issue so that the victim’s family can feel like
they can be safe again.
5. It eliminates the possibility of an escape and future
victims.
Drug lord Joaquin Guzman, better known as “El Chapo,”
has a long history of being captured and escaping from
maximum security prisons. In 2001, with the help of
guards that he bribed, he escaped in a dirty laundry cart,
and then into the trunk of a waiting Monte Carlo. He hid
in tunnels for days when captured in Mazatlan in 2014.
He then escaped through a tunnel in 2015 out of
Mexico’s top-security prison.
When there is a life in prison sentence, then an individual
has nothing to lose with their effort to escape. What can
the criminal justice system do to that person except add
more time to their life sentence? By using capital
punishment, this threat disappears – which means there
will be no future victims either.
6. The application of capital punishment in just ways can
limit prison overpopulation issues.

People are living longer today than arguably at any other
time in history. California’s criminal justice system
became so overcrowded with prisoners that the federal
courts had to step in to order changes or risk letting
convicted prisoners loose because there was no room to
house them. The state has the largest death room in the
country, and with new capital convictions happening
every month, their prison ran out of room.
There were 750 people on death row in California in 2015,
up from 646 in 2006. By managing this process so that it
is efficient, including any appeals or pleadings which are
legally permitted, it becomes possible to manage the
population and limit costs without creating the potential
for harm in the rest of society.
List of the Disadvantages of the Death Penalty
1. It is the ultimate denial of human rights when
implemented.
Amnesty International describes the implementation of
capital punishment like this. “The death penalty is the
ultimate denial of human rights,” the organization says.
“It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a
human being by the state in the name of justice. It
violates the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman,
and degrading punishment. There can never be any
justification for torture or cruel treatment.”
The definition of justice can be a tricky element. How a
society chooses to punish its offenders is more reflective
of them than it is the choices that criminals make.
Sparing someone’s life, even if that person took the life
of another, takes vengeance out of the scenario. Being
pro-life by definition means that one must be for every
life.
2. The death penalty can execute someone who is
possible innocent.
Ever since the United States reinstated the death penalty
after a Supreme Court ruling allowed for it as part of the
justice system, over 1,400 people have been executed by
13
the state or federal government. Courts in the U.S. don’t
usually entertain a claim of innocence until after the
convicted individual dies of natural causes or goes
through with the execution. There are 15 cases where
there is strong evidence to suggest innocence out of this
number, with the latest being Carlton Michael Gary, who
was executed in 2018 by the state of Georgia.
A police statement withheld from the defense indicated
that the witness who identified Gary in court was actually
asleep at the time and that she could not describe or
identify her attacker. DNA evidence left at the scene
excluded him as well. Improper handling of evidence and
a lack of presentation of other items were also part of the
issue, along with a lack of federal review despite all of
these concerns.
Even one innocent person being put to death by the state
is too many.
3. The cost to prosecute the death penalty is much higher
than other cases.
When the state of Oklahoma examined the differences in
cases where capital punishment was the desired
outcome sought with a conviction rather than life in
prison, the overall cost of pursuing the death penalty was
3.2 times higher. This data is similar to that found in a
review of 15 state studies that looked at the cost of this
issue and found that seeking the death penalty raises the
average cost of a case by over $700,000. Even the most
conservative estimates from this information finds that
there is a $110,000 increase in expense.
When you incorporate the time spent on death row, the
cost of the lengthy appeals process in the United States,
and the issues with secure housing, it can cost over $1
million more to proceed with capital punishment instead
of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
4. There may not be any deterrence to crime with the
death penalty in place.

“I know that in practice, the death penalty does more
harm than good,” said Police Chief James Abbot of West
Orange, NJ. “So, while I hang on to my theoretical views,
as I’m sure many of you will, I stand before you to say
that society is better off without capital punishment. Life
in prison without parole in a maximum-security
detention facility is the better alternative.
When examining data between states with and without
the death penalty, there are five specific conclusions to
draw.
States with the death penalty have higher murder rates
than those without it.
National trends do not impact local decisions by criminals
to break the law, whether the death penalty is present or
not.
There is no apparent correlation between the death
penalty and changes in murder rates.
Capital punishment has no discernible effect on the
killing of law enforcement officials.
The abolition of the death penalty occurs most often in
states where the murder of police officers is a very low
percentage of all homicides.
In 2014, there were 14,000 murders that took place in
the United States, but there were only 35 executions that
took place.
5. It is used to control political messages.
The United States uses the death penalty exclusively for
the punishment of crimes as defined by legal code and
precedent. It is a principle which is not consistent for
other countries in the world. 78% of global executions
because of capital punishment come from just four
countries when excluding China: Iraq, Vietnam, Saudi
Arabia, and Iran.
Some countries, including Sudan and Iran, use the death
penalty as a political tool. It becomes a way to punish
political opponents who might want to take their country
14
in a different direction. There were a total of 2,500 death
sentences recorded in 54 countries in 2018, with about
20,000 people currently under sentence around the
world at the end of the year.
6. Children are sometimes put to death through the use
of capital punishment.
There are at least 97 kids who were put to death by
capital punishment laws in Iran since 1990. Another 145
child executions have happened in China, the Republic of
Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria –
and the United States.
Scott Hain, Toronto Patterson, T.J. Jones, Napoleon
Beazley, Gerald Mitchell, Shaka Sankofa, Glen McGinnis,
and Steven Roach were all put to death in the United
States for a crime that they committed at age 17. Sean
Sellers was executed when he was 29 for a crime that he
committed when he was 16.
7. There is no going back after the execution takes place.
When we carry out a death sentence, it is an irreversible
sentence. Over 160 people sent to death row in the
United States have either been exonerated of the crime
or released because there was direct evidence of their
innocence. Even though a grand jury must indict
someone and then the case and sentencing are both held
before another jury in the U.S., their finding that
someone is guilty does not mean the individual is
innocent.
Conservative estimates on the number of innocent
people convicted in the United States suggest that at
least 0.4% of convicted criminals are not guilty of the
crimes for which they are accused. If the death penalty
were not in place, then there would be time to reverse
an unjust conviction.
8. The evidence obtained to justify the death penalty is
sometimes tainted.

There are specific guidelines in the United States today
that limit how and when law enforcement can obtain
evidence during questioning. This structure of protection
is not always available around the world. There are
numerous people executed after being convicted during
an unfair trial, often on the basis of evidence or
confessions obtained through the use of torture. Some
defendants were not given adequate legal
representation.
Some countries even use the death penalty as a
mandatory punishment for specific offenses, which
means the judge cannot consider the circumstances of
the crime during the sentencing phase of a trial.
9. It tends to be applied in a discriminatory way.
“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,” writes Amnesty International. The Women
Donors Network found that 95% of the elected
prosecutors in the United States are white, and 79% of
them are white men. In nine of the death penalty states,
there was not a single elected prosecutor who came from
a minority group.
Professor Katherine Beckett of the University of
Washington found that jurors were 4.5 times more likely
to impose a capital punishment sentence on a defendant
who was black compared to a white defendant in a
similar circumstance in an examination of 285 cases.
10. Family members of a victim are adversely impacted
by the death penalty.
The Marquette Law Review found that when family
members go through the capital punishment process
after someone they love becomes a victim, they have
higher levels of mental, physical, and behavioral health
problems when compared to when the perpetrator
receives a sentence of life in prison. Although this issue
does not happen in every circumstance, some family
15
members can feel responsible for the fact that the
government is putting this criminal to death.
Proponents would argue that capital punishment
provides relief because it guarantees that person can no
longer harm another, but there are many families who
do not feel a sense of satisfaction with this action. If they
are the ones who experience loss, then there should be
a way to provide input for them.
11. There are very few prison escapes that occur, and
fewer that involve violent criminals.
The number of escapes from prison in the United States
declined by more than 50% between 1998-2013, falling
to a rate of 10.5 escapes per 10,000 prisoners in 2013. At
the same time, the number of life sentences handed out
by the court system has gone up by 500%. Most of the
incidents that contribute to a prisoner escape come from
low-security situations, like when 16 prisoners walked
away from a work site and another 3 disappeared from a
community work center.
Out of all of the reported escapes in 2013, only one
inmate from a secured facility was able to get away.
12. Some people just don’t care.
There are people who will always decide to operate
outside of the rules that society sets for safety and
security. These are the criminals that filter into and out
of prison consistently until they end up spending their life
there. Rehabilitation doesn’t work because there is no
investment to be different. The death penalty is not
going to stop someone from hurting another person in
this situation because the criminal is living for the thrill of
the moment instead of thinking about their future
consequences.
Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of the
Death Penalty

As of May 2019, about 60% of the world’s population
lives in a country, state, or province where the death
penalty is a possible outcome for criminal conduct. There
are 56 nations which retain the option for capital
punishment for a variety of crimes, including incidents
that do not include aggravated homicide.
Some countries execute people who are under the age of
18 when the crime was committed. It is used against
those with intellectual or mental disabilities. There are
times when it is applied after an unfair trial in clear
violation of international laws and norms. “The death
penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence,” writes
Amnesty International, “not a solution to it.”
The advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty
rely on several instruments to restrict its use to the most
severe situations while providing states, provinces, and
nations the freedom to implement it as local populations
see fit. Whether it is the right or wrong approach is
ultimately up to you to decide.
1. Morality
"[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for
the most heinous murders and the most brutal and
conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics
argue, a kind of state-run lottery that randomly chooses
an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all
those convicted of murder. Rather, the capital
punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the
worst...
Put another way, to sentence killers like those described
above to less than death would fail to do justice because
the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would
be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the
crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder
victims understand this essential point...
16
Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the
death penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the
majesty of the moral order and for the system of human
law that both derives from and supports that moral
order."
Edward Feser, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City
College
Joseph M. Bessette, PhD
Alice Tweed Tuohy Professor of Government and Ethics
at Claremont McKenna College
"Why the Death Penalty Is Still Necessary,"
catholicworldreport.com
July 21, 2016
"As superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, I
planned and carried out that state's only two executions
in the last 54 years I used to support the death penalty. I
don't anymore...
I was charged with executing two inmates on the
penitentiary’' death row, Douglas Franklin Wright and
Harry Charles Moore...
Regardless of their crimes, the fact that I was now to be
personally involved in their executions forced me into a
deeper reckoning with my feelings about capital
punishment. After much contemplation, I became
convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed
or it wasn't. And I wanted it to be...
Since I retired from corrections in 2010, my mission has
been to persuade people that capital punishment is a
failed policy. America should no longer accept the myth
that capital punishment plays any constructive role in our
criminal justice system. It will be hard to bring an end to

the death penalty, but we will be a healthier society as a
result."
Semon Frank Thompson
Former Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary
"What I Learned from Executing Two Men,"
nytimes.com
Sep. 15, 2016
2. Constitutionality
"Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they
committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since
put to death, raping and murdering an 11–month-old
baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their
sentences as 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth
Amendment. They rely on this provision because it is the
only provision they can rely on. They were charged by a
sovereign State with murder. They were afforded
counsel and tried before a jury of their peers—tried twice,
once to determine whether they were guilty and once to
determine whether death was the appropriate sentence.
They were duly convicted and sentenced...
[N]ot once in the history of the American Republic has
this Court ever suggested the death penalty is
categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is
impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the
Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth
Amendment provides that '[n]o person shall be held to
answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be
'deprived of life...without due process of law...
Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to
bar only those punishments that added ‘terror, pain, or
disgrace’ to an otherwise permissible capital sentence...
17
I would not presume to tell parents whose life has been
forever altered by the brutal murder of a child that life
imprisonment is punishment enough."
Antonin Scalia, JD
Former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court
Concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross,
supreme.justicia.com
June 29, 2015
"[R]ather than try to patch up the death penalty's legal
wounds one at a time, I would ask for full briefing on a
more basic question: whether the death penalty violates
the Constitution.
The relevant legal standard is the standard set forth in
the Eighth Amendment. The Constitution there forbids
the 'inflict[ion]' of 'cruel and unusual punishments.'
Amdt. 8. The Court has recognized that a 'claim that
punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards
that prevailed in 1685... or when the Bill of Rights was
adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail...
Indeed, the Constitution prohibits various gruesome
punishments that were common...
In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional
infirmities in the death penalty could be healed; the
Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the
States to develop procedures that would protect against
those constitutional problems. Almost 40 years of
studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate,
however, that this effort has failed. Today’s
administration of the death penalty involves three
fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious
unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3)
unconscionably long delays that undermine the death
penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4)
most places within the United States have abandoned its
use...

For the reasons I have set forth in this opinion, I believe
it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth
Amendment."
Steven G. Breyer, JD
Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court
Dissenting opinion in Glossip v. Gross,
supreme.justicia.com,
June 29, 2015
3. Deterrence
"Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that
they demand strict penalties – up to and including life
sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this
principle as just...
Studies of the death penalty have reached various
conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime.
But... the majority of studies that track effects over many
years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect.
Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of
samples and statistical methods, consistently
demonstrate a strong link between executions and
reduced murder rates... In short, capital punishment
does, in fact, save lives."
David Muhlhausen, PhD
Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis at the
Heritage Foundation
"Capital Punishment Works: It Deters Crime,"
dailysignal.com
18
Oct. 4, 2014
"[T]here is not the slightest credible statistical evidence
that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide.
Whether one compares the similar movements of
homicide in Canada and the US when only the latter
restored the death penalty, or in American states that
have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong
Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death
penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly
increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable
effect of capital punishment on crime. The best
econometric studies reach the same conclusion…
[L]ast year roughly 14,000 murders were committed but
only 35 executions took place. Since murderers typically
expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the
likelihood is incredibly remote that some small chance of
execution many years after committing a crime will
influence the behaviour of a sociopathic deviant who
would otherwise be willing to kill if his only penalty were
life imprisonment. Any criminal who actually thought he
would be caught would find the prospect of life without
parole to be a monumental penalty. Any criminal who
didn’t think he would be caught would be untroubled by
any sanction."
John J. Donohue III, JD, PhD
Professor of Law at Stanford University
"There's No Evidence That Death Penalty Is a Deterrent
against Crime,"
theconversation.com
Aug. 8, 2015
4. Retribution

"We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve
it, but only to the degree they deserve it. Retributivists
do not justify the death penalty by the general
deterrence or safety it brings us. And we reject over-
punishing no less than under-punishing. How obscene
that aggravated murderers who behave well inside
prison watch movies and play softball.
Regardless of future benefits, we justify punishment
because it's deserved. Let the punishment fit the crime…
Opponents [of the death penalty] wrongly equate
retribution and revenge, because they both would inflict
pain and suffering on those who have inflicted pain and
suffering on us.
Whereas revenge knows no bounds, retribution must be
limited, proportional and appropriately directed: The
retributive punishment fits the crime…
We should only execute those who most deserve it. And
not randomly. Refine our death penalty statutes and
review the sentences of everyone on death row. Release
into general population those who don't really deserve
to die. The rest we should execute — worst first."
Robert Blecker, JD
Professor of Law at New York Law School
"Q&A: Death Penalty Proponent Robert Blecker,”
dallasnews.com
Apr. 2014
"No one can blame victims and their families for wanting
revenge, including through the death penalty. In their
pain and loss, they are entitled to that desire. However,
laws exist to prevent individuals from pursuing
vengeance and their own vision of justice. If they do
19
anyway (if, for example, a victim kills a perpetrator) then
they become perpetrators and pay the price, both legally
and morally. Although we may feel empathy with such a
victim seeking revenge, Nietzsche's warning—that when
fighting monsters you must take care not to become one
yourself—should be remembered. Killing by the state is
wrong as well, potentially even worse than killing by an
individual...
In my view, the death penalty is morally, socially and
politically wrong. Morally, killing is wrong. Killing on
behalf of a state is wrong as well. Some may believe that
the death penalty is a just and moral punishment for the
most serious of crimes; victims and their families are
morally entitled to long for revenge. However, the social,
political and economic costs of such retribution are, in
my opinion, too high...
No national interest can justify human rights violations
such as the death penalty or torture."
Ivan Simonovic, PhD, LLM
Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General
on the Responsibility to Protect
"Introduction: An Abolitionist's Perspective," in Moving
Away from the Death Penalty
ohchr.org
Aug. 31, 2015
5. Irrevocable Mistakes
"Those in support of abolishing the death penalty point
to the possibility of an innocent person being executed...
The innocent can take solace in knowing that a
unanimous jury of 12 citizens must render the death
verdict after an exhaustive trial where the accused
murderer is represented by two highly competent

attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who
ensures a fair trial.
Voters understand that the criminals on death row have
been convicted of the most heinous crimes. Voters also
realize that those left behind, grieving families
throughout California and their loved ones, don’t
deserve anything less than justice.
Justice is a reformed, not eliminated death penalty."
Michele Hanisee, JD
Deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles
and President of the Association of District Attorneys
"Justice Requires a Swift Death Penalty in California,"
marinscope.com
Sep. 27, 2016
"I want to get as many votes as I can to abolish this death
penalty...
[O]ver 150 people in the last few years have been taken
off death row because they were innocent. I know there
are people who want to believe that no innocent person
has ever been executed in this country. But when you
have this many people conclusively proved by DNA
evidence to be actually innocent, there is no escaping the
conclusion that innocent people have been executed...
There are cases where prosecutors withheld exculpatory
information. They knew that there were bogus pieces of
evidence introduced. They knew that there were
defendants who were coerced into entering a guilty plea
to a crime they had not committed."
Ernie Chambers, JD
20
Nebraska State Senator
Transcript of Nebraska legislature floor debate,
legislature.ne.gov
Apr. 16, 2015
6. Cost of Death vs. Life in Prison
"Much of the cost, indeed, much of the criticism of the
death penalty, is attributed to 'decades of appeals.' It is
unsurprising that the loudest complaints about death
penalty delays come from death penalty opponents who
have created them...
Claimed 'cost studies,' often performed by or at the
behest of death penalty opponents, are frequently so
incomplete as to be false and misleading. For example,
they don't take into account the increase in the cost of
life without parole cases if there were no death penalty.
Criminal defendants who are facing the death penalty —
which today must be pleaded by prosecutors up front —
often want to make a deal by pleading guilty to first
degree murder in exchange for a sentencing
recommendation of life without parole. The existence of
the death penalty as a possible sentence leads to guilty
pleas that save the money spent on trials and limit the
opportunity for appeals."
Robert B.Evnen, JD
Attorney and Co-founder of Nebraskans for the Death
Penalty
"Local View: Thoughts about the Death Penalty:
Correcting the Record,"
journalstar.com
July 11, 2015

"One of the most common misperceptions about the
death penalty is the notion that the death penalty saves
money because executed defendants no longer have to
be cared for at the state's expense. If the costs of the
death penalty were to be measured at the time of an
execution, that might indeed be true. But as every
prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge knows, the
costs of a capital case begin long before the sentence is
carried out. Experienced prosecutors and defense
attorneys must be assigned and begin a long period of
investigation and pre-trial hearings. Jury selection, the
trial itself, and initial appeals will consume years of time
and enormous amounts of money before an execution is
on the horizon…
[A]ll of the studies conclude that the death penalty
system is far more expensive than an alternative system
in which the maximum sentence is life in prison."
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD
Former Executive Director of the Death Penalty
Information Center
"Testimony Submitted to the Nebraska Legislature,"
deathpenaltyinfo.org
Mar. 13, 2013
7. Race
"Death penalty opponents state it is inherently unfair
and racially biased. The facts, I believe, are otherwise...
The racial breakdown for those sentenced to death since
1977 is as follows: 48.6 percent white; 40.9 percent black;
8.9 percent Hispanic; and 1.6 percent other. The race of
defendants executed in the U.S. since 1976 is 56 percent
white; 35 percent black; 7 percent Hispanic; 2 percent
other.
21
The reason for the discrepancy in the execution rate
between blacks and whites is that juries deciding
whether to impose the death penalty have concluded in
more cases involving black defendants that there were
extenuating circumstances militating in favor of a lesser
penalty...
The American public still supports the death penalty,
notwithstanding the hammering capital punishment
receives each year... I’m glad the American public does."
Edward Koch, LLB
Former Mayor of New York City
"Statistics Show Death Penalty Not Racist,"
newsmax.com
Sep. 27, 2011
"There is a particular, fundamental flaw in our justice
system that other candidates appear to lack the
commitment to address -- our failed reliance on the
death penalty. This is a tragedy both because it is a
racially biased punishment, and also ineffective in
deterring crime...
Our nation's legacy of slavery and racial injustice find
continued offense in our use of the death penalty. Our
death row population is more than 40% black -- nearly
three times the proportion of the general population.
Reforming our criminal justice system to save and
redeem more lives is not as simple as changing just one
thing. But we should be able to admit that we must do
more of what works to save lives, and we should stop
doing things that do not work.
As a prosecutor, I saw that the death penalty's racial
legacy could not be excused or explained away -- and

that too many innocent lives were being taken by this
profoundly flawed practice.
So I decided to fight for the death penalty's repeal."
Martin O'Malley, JD
Former Governor of Maryland
"Why the Death Penalty Needs to Go,"
cnn.com
Nov. 6, 2015
8. Closure for Victims' Families
"Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty,
one thing most people will never know is the pain
experienced when a family member, or in my case, family
members are brutally tortured and murdered. In 1984,
my mother, sister and two nephews were cold-heartedly
shot to death by an 18-year-old gang member named
Tiqueon Cox...
Tiqueon was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers
and has been on death row for 30 years after exhausting
all of his appeals at both the state and federal level... Cox,
while on death row, attempted a violent takeover of the
Super Max Adjustment Center at San Quentin with a goal
to kill as many guards as possible.
I urge a no vote on Prop. 62 and yes on Prop. 66 to ensure
the worst of the worst killers receive the strongest
sentence. A yes on Prop. 66 brings closure to families
while saving California taxpayers millions of dollars every
year."
Kermit Alexander
22
Former NFL player and President of the NFL Players
Association who lost his mother, sister and two nephews
when they were murdered in 1984
"Letters to the Editor, Oct. 1,"
sfchronicle.com
Sep. 30, 2016
"To me, the death penalty also is something else — a sad
reminder of how our justice system typically offers
punishment instead of healing for the survivors of violent
crime…
For a growing number of victims of violence, the thought
of honoring our loved ones by killing another human
being is not only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent.
Perhaps more than others, I understand acutely that an
execution would just visit pain on another family.
Moreover, the death penalty typically brings the
opposite of what survivors of crime most need:
accountability, healing and closure…
The death penalty also keeps us stuck in an angry stage
of grief. The death penalty requires all of us, victims and
spectators alike, to actively summon feelings of hatred
and contempt in order to justify the murder of another
human being. I have felt all of those things at various
times towards my sister’s killer…
While not all murder victim family members feel this way,
many of us do. For all these reasons, I say to prosecutors
who seek the death penalty: Not in my name."

Tanya Coke, JD
Senior Program Officer for Criminal Justice at the Ford
Foundation and the sister of a murder victim
"Death Penalty Punishes Survivors Like Me: Column,"
usatoday.com
Aug. 28, 2016
9. Attorney Quality
"The next urban legend is that of the threadbare but
plucky public defender fighting against all odds against a
team of sleek, heavily-funded 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
"Perhaps the most important factor in determining
whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the
quality of the representation he or she is provided.
Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their
own attorneys. In many cases, the appointed attorneys
are overworked, underpaid, or lacking the trial
experience required for death penalty cases. There have
23
even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a
death case were so inexperienced that they were
completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the
trial. Other appointed attorneys have slept through parts
of the trial, or arrived at the court under the influence of
alcohol. The right to an attorney is a vital hallmark of the
American judicial system. It is essential that the attorney
be experienced in capital cases, be adequately
compensated, and have access to the resources needed
to fulfil his or her obligations to the client and the court."
Death Penalty Information Center
"Death Penalty Representation,"
deathpenaltyinfo.org
(accessed Sep. 29, 2016)
10. Physicians at Executions
"We expect physicians to offer comfort care to the dying,
even if the treatment, like morphine to dampen end-
stage cancer pain, will inevitably hasten death. These
physicians are not killing their patients; they are
comforting them in their final moments of life...
Death row inmates have certain parallels to dying
patients. Death is coming. A physician can do nothing to
change that. All that can be offered is professional care
during the final moments of life. And that should be of
comfort to the condemned...
The idea that physicians may participate in executions
does not mean that they must do so. But it should be an
option for those who believe that they have a duty to
ease suffering and that this duty includes caring for those
who will die at the hands of the state...
Physician involvement in lethal injection can make
capital punishment less grotesque, more palatable, and

even routine. But so long as the state uses the tools of
the physician to kill its citizens, those who wish to step in
to ensure that executions are, at the very least,
competently handled should have the option to do so.
Anything else is death penalty politics at the expense of
the condemned. And no matter where you come out on
capital punishment, no one should be sentenced to a
botched execution."
Kenneth F. Baum, MD, JD
Partner at Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum,
LLP
Julie Cantor, MD, JD
Attorney Of Counsel at Goldman, Ismail, Tomaselli,
Brennan & Baum, LLP
"Doctors Can Ease Suffering, Even in Executions,"
nytimes.com
Apr. 30, 2014
"No matter how one feels about capital punishment, it is
disquieting for physicians to act as agents of the state in
the assisting, supervising or contributing to a legally
authorized execution. Physicians are fundamentally
healers dedicated to preserving life when there is hope
of doing so. The knowledge and skill of physicians must
only be used for care, compassion and healing. To have
the state mandate that physician skills be turned against
a human being undermines a basic ethical foundation of
medicine – first, do no harm.
The American Medical Association is troubled by
continuous refusal of states to acknowledge the ethical
obligations of physicians that strictly prohibit
involvement in capital punishment. The AMA's policy is
clear and unambiguous – requiring physicians to
participate in executions violates their oath to protect
lives and introduces deep ambiguity into the very
definition of medical care.
24
Oklahoma and other states that continue to authorize
lethal injections must honor the well-established
principle of medical ethics that prohibits physician
participation in capital punishment."
Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Chair of the World Medical Association
"State Mandates for Physician Participation in Capital
Punishment Violate Medical Ethics,"
ama-assn.org
May 2, 2014
List of 10 Biggest Death Penalty Pros and Cons
Jul 21, 2015 by Crystal Ayres
Death penalty, also known as capital punishment is a
legal process where the state sends a death row inmate
to execution as a punishment for a grave offense
committed. Although not all crimes are punishable by
death, there are strong opinions shared by both pro-
death penalty and anti-death penalty supporters.
In some countries, it is still practiced while in the United
States, it has been abolished in some s and still observed
in several states. Whether it should be carried out or not
has been a long standing argument between the two
parties.
List of Pros of Death Penalty
1. Death penalty costs the government less as opposed
to life imprisonment without parole.
Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the
government from imposing capital punishment, death
penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life
without parole. Although there is no contention that the
cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is
accumulatively higher given the expenses for food,

health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of
incarcerated individuals serving life.
2. It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies.
Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how
imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have
affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in
the late 1960’s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on
the years when this law was abolished. On the other
hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in
number of inmates in the death row who were executed
each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly
indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring
crimes.
3. The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime
rate increase.
As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000
people in the United States have been victims of crimes,
from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address
this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals
become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes
because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in
the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for
death penalty.
4. It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight
Amendment which prohibits the federal government
from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual
punishments, including torture.
Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated
with the execution of a death row inmate is not
improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected
the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the
drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious
before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so
completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that
any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain
and states with capital punishment have already adopted
more humane methods to carry out executions.
25
5. Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes
committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety
of victims.
It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be
free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape
and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no
regard for life and property of others. Since they violate
other people’s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to
justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People
who are for capital punishment also talk about free will
wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his
or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or
her own fate.
List of Cons of Death Penalty
1. Innocent people are wrongly executed.
One of the arguments of opponents of death penalty is
the inevitability of sending innocent people who are
wrongly accused to death row and eventually execution.
The sad thing about this, according to those who are
opposed is that innocence is proven after the execution
has been carried out.
2. In relation to free will, some criminals are suffering
from mental illness or are having clouded judgment at
the time of the crime.
Opponents contend that there are instances where
people commit pre-meditated crimes and are aware of
what they are doing. However, it does not discount the
fact that crimes can also be committed out of passion or
extreme anger triggered by a situation which makes an
offender act on impulse. There are also those who are
suffering from mental illnesses and are not taking
medication which can lead to them committing offenses
they have no control of.
3. It is an added cost to the government and taxpayers’
money.
 26

With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole have to say. In a nutshell, they should let the voice of the
is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the people be heard.
government spends more taxpayers’ money in handling
cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and
complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired
and the overall process. They contend that there are two
trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and
another for the sentencing, not including the number of
appeals that will be submitted while keeping the
convicted prisoner inside maximum security.

4. Death penalty is a form of revenge.

While proponents say that imposing capital punishment

is a form of retribution, that is, to punish who has
committed a crime, opponents argue that it is revenge.
For the latter, to avenge a crime committed to another
individual may be understandable but killing someone
for murdering another person is also unconstitutional. It
is crime in itself that is only masked by the term capital
punishment and in truth, only continues the series of
violence.

5. It is a platform that is anti-poor and discriminatory.

Those who are death row inmates and sentenced to

death are mostly based on racial discrimination as
evidenced by a high percentage of inmates being African-
American and members of the minority. Moreover,
accused individuals who are poor are mostly the ones
who get the death penalty for the reason that they lack
the finances to seek for great and powerful defense
attorneys. They don’t have the money to pay for good
defense.

Conclusion

With the disparate views pointed out by proponents and

opponents of death penalty, deciding on which group
was able to prove a more logical perspective on the issue
can be challenging. Legislators should consider all the
issues presented by the public and listen to what they