FINAL OUTPUT:

Duterte Wants the Death Penalty Back

Tomasito Villarin

Jan. 29, 2017

What the essay is all about:

President Rodrigo Duterte is taking his brutal campaign against drugs from the streets to the halls
of Congress and he proposes to reinstate the death penalty, which was abolished in the Philippines
last 2006. Tomasito Villarin stated his opinions based on the Philippine’s history with death penalty
and argues that this must be stopped now.

Claim:

The Philippines’s history with the death penalty is painful and complicated, thus having the need
of death penalty to remain abolished in this country.

Five reasons to prove the claim:

Reason #1: Spanish colonizers’ time

1.1 Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator, used death penalty to instill fear by broadcasting executions
and to put down uprisings in the late 1800s

1.2 Just a year after Marcos’s ouster in 1986, the Philippines became the first country in Asia to
abolish capital punishment.

1.3 The death penalty was reinstated in 1993, in response to the perception that crime was on
the rise.

1.4 It was abolished again in 2006, after a sustained campaign by a broad coalition including the
Catholic Church and human rights groups.

Conclusion: Having death penalty as part of the country’s judicial recourse over the time would
weaken the country’s position.

* It shows here that the premises are true based on facts about the timeline of the Spanish
colonizers. The first and second premises shows the move formed part of a determined effort to
restore respect for human rights following the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. Although, it
doesn’t clearly state the stand in each premises. The conclusion is more likely to be true given
the premises presented of how the timeline altered in abolishing the penalty.
Soundness of Argument: It is an inductive argument since it supports the conclusion.

Reason #2: Philippines’s previous experiences with the death penalty

2.1 Death sentences were handed out liberally in the past

2.1.1 By the action of lobbying by the Church and others, only few executions took place

Conclusion: The application of death penalty has been excessive

* Both the premises are true as the first premise states that the penalty was handed out
liberally thus, by the action of the Church/others, as shown in the second premise, spoke up
which lessened the executions. The conclusion follows from the premise because it showed the
effect of the death sentence which concludes its being excessive.

Soundness of Argument: Valid argument since the premise supports the conclusion stated that
the death penalty is too much.

Reason #3: Judicial mistakes and other irregularities were legion

3.1 In its 2004 decision in The People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia, the Supreme
Court noted that death sentences had been wrongly imposed in nearly 72 percent of the 907
death-penalty cases it had reviewed since 1993.
3.2 In a 2004 study, more than 45 percent of inmates on death row claimed to have been tortured
by the police.

Conclusion: The risk of judicial error is sharply increased if torture or ill-treatment of

criminals is used to extract confessions.
* Both premises are true because it both states that this shows it’s ridden with errors,
wrongly accused and unfair to the marginalized populations.
Soundness of Argument: Deductive argument since the premises demonstrates the
conclusion

Reason #4: Capital punishment’s disproportionate impact on the poor

4.1 More than 73 percent of people were on death row before 2006 earned less than 10,000
pesos a month (the equivalent of about $190 then), according to the Free Legal Assistance
Group, a local NGO.
4.1.1 The poor are particularly vulnerable to wrongful convictions and other problems because
they can rarely afford to hire competent lawyers.
4.2 Minors and the mentally handicapped at risk despite the protections written into the law
4.2.1 Reports by Amnesty International and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
from the late 1990s and early 2000s found that, due to poor record-keeping and police
procedures, several death-row inmates had been minors at the time of their alleged crimes.

4.3 Marlon Parazo, a deaf-mute and mentally challenged man, was sentenced to death in 1995
even though he had not been capable of understanding the charges or the proceedings against
him.

4.3.1 His sentence was eventually overturned thanks to pressure from human rights groups, but
there is no way to know for sure how many other disabled prisoners have been wrongfully
convicted.

4.4 There is no reason to think that these fundamental flaws in the Philippines’s criminal justice
system have been fixed.

Conclusion: There is discrimination and lack of due process in criminal cases that remains
serious concerns regarding especially the marginalized. It carries a manifest risk of miscarriages
of justice. Corruption is rampant in this view and they target more of the underprivileged.

* All the premises supports the argument as it clearly stated how it affected the marginalized
population given the facts of each premises. The conclusion is more likely to be true given the
premises presented.

Soundness of Argument: Deductive argument since the premises demonstrates and proves
the conclusion

Reason #5: The question of effectiveness and whether capital punishment actually deters crime

5.1 In 1999, when the first executions since the end of the Marcos era took place, the number of
crimes reported nationwide increased by more than 15 percent.

5.2 In 2007, after the death penalty was abolished, reported crimes dropped by more than 7
percent.

Conclusion: The killing will not provide a solution to the challenge of criminality which will
continue to be fuelled by a complex of factors including poverty, social inequality, unemployment
and the weakening of formal and informal methods of social control.

* Both the premises doesn’t clearly state how death penalty deters crime although, it stated
the quantity of crimes on how it dropped after abolishing the penalty. The conclusion follows from
the premises.

Soundness of Argument: Inductive argument since the premise supports the conclusion that
death penalty doesn’t act as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment.
Overall Evaluation of the Arguments

As the Philippines set an historic precedent by becoming the first Asian country in modern times
to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. The death penalty is no solution to the severe challenge
posed by criminality in the Philippines. It is the certainty of arrest, conviction and long periods of
imprisonment. As in the past it appears to be imposed inconsistently and in a disproportionate
way against the poor, ill-educated and disadvantaged. It’s possible to be tough on crime without
capital punishment. On the other hand, given the judicial system’s flaws and the current political
climate, I think that reinstating it today would be like encouraging state-sanctioned murder. The
risk of judicial errors is mounting and badly concerned over the use of illegal methods, including
torture, by criminal investigative officers seeking to extract confessions. In conclusion, Tomasito
Villarin clearly stated and pointed out the main reasons/arguments shown above about why death
penalty should be abolished given the country’s past experiences and history.