CHATER 2

REVIEW REALTED LITERATURE OF THE STUDY

Introduction:
In this chapter we will review some of the related article regarding and still focusing
about the implementation of the death penalty, how can we help us to choose weather
affirmative or negative part of the case the respondent might going to choose.
To determine if the SHS students have or possess the capability of answering this kind
of issue can also affect the way of living.

Foreign Literature
Like many if not all books, this one began in another book, Jacques Derrida’sDeath
Penalty, Volume I, which is the transcript of the first year of a seminar given from 1999–
2000.¹ I have had a long and varied relationship with this book over the past almost twenty
years. I first heard these lectures at UC Irvine, in two successive spring quarters when
Derrida was in residence there and reprised in English the lectures he had written and
delivered initially in French, at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in
Paris. As auditors, already, the lectures made. Why, on the death penalty, begin with
literature?” asks Jacques Derrida early in the first year of his seminar on the death
penalty.¹ The very formulation of the question implies this is such a surprising place to
begin that it demands explanation. Why indeed speak of literature just as one is beginning
to address the life-and-death issue of capital punishment? Especially if, as Derrida
remarks elsewhere, one must profess oneself dumbstruck, “stupefied,” by the fact that
“never, to my knowledge, has any philosopher, as such, in his properly philosophical
discourse, never has any philosophy as such contested the legitimacy of.

It may seem strange that certain uses of “execution,” “to execute,” and “executed”
have managed to set themselves apart sharply from the other meanings these words
commonly have, uses that let us speak of intentions, plans, policies, instructions,
commands, orders, wills, operations, offices, laws, functions, designs, and all manner of
things to be executed (or not) that are not human beings subject to the death penalty.
Théoden, for example, when it gets to this particular meaning of the verb “to execute” (“6.
To inflict capital punishment upon; to put to death in pursuance of a sentence”) among all
the. It is well known that over the course of the last half of the nineteenth and the first half
of the twentieth centuries, executions in the West rather abruptly ceased being public
affairs. As early as 1868 in the United Kingdom, hangings were no longer carried out in
public, and in 1965, capital punishment was largely abolished there.¹ In France, the last
public execution by guillotine was in 1939, whereas abolition did not come until 1981. In
Italy, the last public execution was in 1947, and capital punishment was abolished there
the following year. In West Germany, the last public. Between 1968 and 1977, there were
no executions in the United States. It is surprising to remember this fact today given that,
since 1982, not a year has gone by without multiple executions in this country. During
most of that earlier decade ode fact moratorium, there was considerable sentiment that
the U.S. death penalty was finished.¹ To be sure, it was still on the books in many states,
but as a law that was perhaps becoming the relic of a former age. However, at the
beginning of the decade, in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to rule. Throughout
its chapters this book has been trying to configure various relations between literature—
or some literary works—and the death penalty. These have included the relation that the
witness bears to the act insofar as s/he must give the testimony that the sentence requires
in order to be executed as death penalty. Orwell’s brief story of a witnessed hanging was
accordingly read as evidence of the poetic invention of testimony that, ambiguously and
at once, both disturbs all conviction in the justice of the sentence and enables it to be
carried out as a death sentence. Yet,asliterature. For a long time I have been worrying
about how to conclude this book. Like Mailer, I seemed to have become “bad at endings.”
Just as an index of how bad it was, the last sentence of Chapter 5 took me two days to
find, which is not to say it was necessarily worth the wait. Perhaps a long vigil by the side
of gallows or guillotines, electric chairs or gas chambers has to end up making one eager
to delay the final execution and leery of the “Finis” that, for Benjamin, signals the “limit at
which [the novelist] invites.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8jnzqm

Local Literature
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 proposal was
passed with 216 votes in favor, 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 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. House Bill 4727 is a consolidated version
of several proposals adopted by the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms of the
Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives on 29 November 2016. As of
today, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; in the Asia
Pacific region, 19 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and a further
eight are abolitionist in practice. The new Criminal Code of Mongolia abolishing the death
penalty for all crimes will become effective in July 2017.