Socrates, Juan Pablo P.

2012-33487 / BGC Day 2020

UP College of Law

Tackling Death Penalty in the Context of the Penological Objectives of Criminal Law

The article of Professor Tadiar entitled “A Philosophy of the Penal Code” discusses,

among others, the penological objectives, or the rationale behind establishing a penal system in a

society. Professor Tadiar mentions four objectives, namely, retributive punishment,

prevention/restriction, rehabilitation or reformation, and deterrence.

Under the first penological objective, the State addresses the human instinct to lash out

against those who have wronged us. But since the State does not look with favor on violence, it

assumes, in place of the individual victim, the role of exacting punishment on those who commit

the crime or offense. On the other hand, under the prevention or restrictive theory, those who

commit wrong are confined in a penal institution so that they may be prevented from causing

further harm in society.

Under the third penological objective, criminal law also has the aim of rehabilitating or

reforming those whom society has considered to be morally unfit. Lastly, the criminal law also

has the function of deterring the commission of more crimes by instilling the fear of punishment

in the public.

In the light of these penological objectives, we can then proceed to discuss an issue that

has been occupying the attention of many of our lawmakers, i.e., the question of whether or not

death penalty should be imposed again in our jurisdiction.

It seems that the idea of death penalty fits more into the first and last penological

objectives that were mentioned by Professor Tadiar, i.e., retributive punishment and deterrence.
With respect of retributive punishment, there is no dispute that death penalty does manifest the

capacity of a State to exact vengeance on behalf of a wronged party. However, whether death is

the kind of punishment that a particular victim wishes to inflict upon the perpetrator of the

offense is a question that only the victim can actually answer. And whether imposing death as a

punishment would actually serve the interest of peace and order that the State sought to achieve

by having a retributive penal system, is something that our lawmakers would do well to reflect

on.

As regards the idea of a penal system as a source of deterrence, it is important to note that

Prof. Tadiar mentioned that this theory is anchored on certain presuppositions, namely, that the

citizens have free will, that they have awareness of criminal sanctions, and that they fear

punishment and will therefore avoid it. It would be good if our lawmakers can take these factors

into account in deciding on whether or not to allow for the imposition of death penalty. Will it

truly serve its purpose of deterring crimes, if a large chunk of our population is unaware of the

legal consequences of their actions? Will the fear of death truly prevent the commission of

crimes in all circumstances?

Lastly, will the State risk the chance that an innocent individual may be subjected to the

death penalty for the probability that the others will be deterred from comitting crimes? And how

about the third penological objective, i.e., rehabilitation/reformation? Can there be reformation

when the one you seek to reform has already died?