Literature Review

Although public opinion surveys have provided insight into the level of support people have had for
the death penalty, beginning in the 1970s, the focus of research shifted and attention was being
given to try to help better understand the individual characteristics of those who strongly support
the death penalty, those who support it under certain circumstances, and those who are opposed to
the death penalty. The first areas of this research focused on the personal characteristics of people
and how these characteristics were related to varying levels of support for the death penalty.

Two of the strongest individual-level characteristics related to death penalty support have been race
and gender. Research studies have consistently revealed that White persons have higher levels of
support for the death penalty than non-White persons (Baker, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2005; Britt,
1998; Cochran & Chamlin, 2006; Dotson & Carter, 2012; Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Lambert, Clarke,
Tucker-Gail, & Hogan, 2009; Unnever & Cullen, 2007b; Vidmar & Ellsworth, 1974; Young, 1991; Zeisel
& Gallup, 1989). There have been some studies that suggest that the higher levels of death penalty
support among White persons may partly be explained by White racism (Barkan & Cohn, 1994; Soss
et al., 2003; Unnever & Cullen, 2007a). Another consistent finding is that males are more supportive
of the death penalty than females (Barkan & Cohn, 1994; Borg, 1997; Britt, 1998; Dotson & Carter,
2012; Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Lambert et al., 2009; Vidmar & Ellsworth, 1974; Whitehead &
Blankenship, 2000; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). Unlike race and gender, the findings related to death
penalty support and age have been mixed, with some research reporting that older people tend to
be more supportive of the death penalty (Vidmar & Ellsworth, 1974), other research finding that
younger people tend to be more supportive of the death penalty (Borg, 1997), and additional
research finding that age was not related to death penalty support (Robbers, 2004).

Political affiliation has also been found to be related to death penalty support as those who have
identified themselves as Republicans have shown higher support for the death penalty than either
Democrats or Independents (Britt, 1998; Lambert et al., 2009; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). Research
studies have further generally found an inverse relationship between the importance that religion
plays in an individual’s life (religious saliency) and support for the death penalty (Bader, Desmond,
Mencken, & Johnson, 2010; Britt, 1998; Lambert et al., 2009; Unnever & Cullen, 2006).

Population-based studies have also revealed that level of education has generally been inversely
related to death penalty support, as those with higher levels of education typically are less
supportive of the death penalty (Barkan & Cohn, 1994; Borg, 1997; Britt, 1998; Halim & Stiles,
2001; Vidmar & Ellsworth, 1974; Young, 1991). Studies involving college students, however, have
reported mixed findings related to whether or not one’s level of support for the death penalty is
affected by how far along in college one is. Although studies by Robbers (2004) and Lambert et al.
(2009) found that year in college was not significantly related to death penalty support in studies of
college students, Farnworth et al. (1998) found that seniors were less supportive of capital
punishment than freshmen, and Pasupuleti, Lambert, and Cluse-Tolar (2005) reported that upper
level social work students expressed a greater degree of opposition to the death penalty than lower
level social work students.

A specific characteristic that some studies involving college students have looked at is whether their
choice of major is related to their support or opposition toward the death penalty (Farnworth et al.,
1998; Lambert et al., 2008; Pasupuleti et al., 2005; Robbers, 2004; Schadt & DeLisi, 2007). As
criminologists have conducted many of the studies that have looked at death penalty support among
college students, these studies have frequently compared the support of those majoring in criminal
justice with those majoring in fields other than criminal justice. The findings have been mixed with
some studies reporting greater support for the death penalty among criminal justice majors
compared with non-criminal justice majors (Farnworth et al., 1998; Lambert et al., 2008) and other
studies reporting no difference between criminal justice majors and non-criminal justice majors
(Robbers, 2004; Schadt & DeLisi, 2007). Outside of criminal justice majors, in a study that compared
the death penalty opinions of 172 social work majors with 234 majors from other fields, Pasupuleti et
al. (2005) found that social work majors were significantly less supportive of the death penalty than
non-social work majors. Although research that has looked at individuals’ personal characteristics
found that these characteristics are related to various levels of support for or opposition against
capital punishment, these characteristics are unable to explain the underlying reasons for the
variations.

Research has revealed several common reasons that people provide for supporting the death penalty
and for opposing the death penalty. Commonly given reasons to support the death penalty include
deterrence, retribution, law and order, incapacitation, and cost (Bohm, 1987; Ellsworth & Gross,
1994; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). Reasons given in opposition of the death
penalty include that it is immoral, that it is wrong to respond to violence with violence, that it is
unfairly applied, and that innocent people may have been executed (Ellsworth & Gross,
1994; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989).

Retribution is perhaps the most common reason that people give as a reason for supporting the
death penalty (Bohm, 1987; Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Whitehead & Blankenship, 2000; Zeisel &
Gallup, 1989). There are two different concepts of retribution that relate to supporting capital
punishment: retribution as “just deserts” and retribution as revenge (Finckenauer, 1988). Under the
“just deserts” concept lies the idea that the punishment for an offender should be proportionate to
the harm caused by his or her criminal act. As such, those who support the death penalty under the
“just deserts” concept of retribution believe that it is the appropriate punishment for those
convicted of murder because the crime involved deliberately ending the life of another (Bohm,
1987; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). Under the revenge concept, retribution is frequently an emotional
response that is tied to the pain and anger experienced by those who were affected by the murder.
Those who support the death penalty under this concept frequently believe that the execution will
help relieve the suffering for those affected by the murder.

Another frequent reason people support the death penalty is based on the idea that executing
murderers deters other persons from committing similar crimes in the future (Ellsworth & Ross,
1983; Whitehead & Blankenship, 2000; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). People who support the death penalty
for this reason believe that execution is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment (Ellsworth
& Gross, 1994).

Others who support death penalty do so because they believe that the punishment is necessary to
maintain law and order in society. This is tied to the ideology of using state violence and punishment
as a means of exerting social control (Rankin, 1979). The ideology that the death penalty helps
society to have order is tied to the instrumentalist perspective. “The argument underlying this
hypothesis is that citizens who fear crime or see it as an important social problem and who believe
that crime would be lessened by harsher punishments will support harsher punishments” (Tyler &
Weber, 1982, p. 22).

Incapacitation is another reason given by some to justify support for the death penalty (Ellsworth &
Gross, 1994; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). There is a belief among some that murderers will kill again if they
are not executed (Whitehead & Blankenship, 2000), and under the incapacitation argument,
murderers who are executed will not be able to do so. Another reason people support the death
penalty under the incapacitation ideology is due to the perception many have that people who are
sentenced to life imprisonment do not end up spending the remainder of their life in prison
(Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983). Related to this, some research studies have found
that the number of those who stated that they are in favor of the death penalty decreases when they
were offered the option of life without any chance of parole (Whitehead & Blankenship, 2000).

A fifth commonly given reason for supporting death penalty relates to cost (Bohm, 1987; Ellsworth &
Gross, 1994; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). A common perception that people have is that it costs less to
execute a person than to keep that person incarcerated for the rest of his or her life (Ellsworth &
Ross, 1983; Lambert & Clarke, 2004). Although research studies have found that executions actually
cost more than life imprisonment (Cook & Slawson, 1993; Roman, Chalfin, Sundquist, Knight, &
Darmenov, 2008; Spangenberg & Walsh, 1989), studies also show that many people are not aware of
this fact (Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Lambert & Clarke, 2004).

One of the most prevalent reasons why people are opposed to capital punishments relates to the
issue of morality. These people view it as immoral or wrong for the state to kill someone (Ellsworth &
Gross, 1994; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). A second reason why people are
opposed to the death penalty has to do with the possibility that an innocent person may end up
being executed (Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). This is becoming a salient argument
as more people who are being sent to death row are subsequently released because of doubts about
their guilt (Harmon, 2001; Radelet & Bedau, 1998). Since 1973, there have been more than 155
people who have been exonerated and released from death row (Death Penalty Information Center,
2015). A third common reason that people state why executions need to be abolished is because of
its unfair application and disproportionate impact on minorities (Radelet & Pierce, 1985; Sorenson &
Wallace, 1999) and the poor (Bright, 1994; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983). Although deterrence has been
cited as a reason to support the death penalty, some who oppose the death penalty believe that
executions do not deter murders but rather believe that executions have a brutalization effect that
may result in an increase in the level of violence and rates of homicide (Bowers & Pierce,
1980; Vandiver, Giacopassi, & Gathje, 2002). Finally, as with support for the death penalty,
opposition can also be due to emotional reasons. People who are opposed to executions sometimes
state that they are saddened when people are executed and are opposed for this reason (Ellsworth &
Ross, 1983).
As research has found that there are different reasons why people are in support of capital
punishment or in opposition to capital punishment, some studies have begun to look at how these
differences vary among different groups. In a study that analyzed different reasons for supporting or
opposing the death penalty based on race, Baker et al. (2005) reported that African American
students had significantly lower levels of agreement with eight of nine statements that reflected
reasons to support the death penalty and significantly higher levels of agreement with seven
statements that reflected reasons to oppose the death penalty than White students. The reasons to
support the death penalty included statements related to deterrence, retribution, law and order, and
incapacitation, and the reasons to oppose the death penalty included statements related to morality,
unfair application, the brutalization effect, mercy, and innocence. When multivariate models were
run controlling for race, gender, age, and academic standing, African American students remained
significantly less supportive than White students on four of the nine statements for supporting the
death penalty and significantly more supportive than White students on six of the seven statements
for opposing the death penalty.

In a second study that analyzed different reasons for supporting or opposing the death penalty based
on gender, Lambert et al. (2009) reported that female students had significantly lower levels of
agreement than male students for five statements that measured support for the death penalty
based on retribution, for three statements that measured support for the death penalty based on
deterrence, and for two of three statements that measured support for the death penalty based on
incapacitation. The female students were further found to have higher levels of agreement than
male students for four statements that measured opposition to the death penalty based on issues of
morality, for two statements that the death penalty was unfairly administered, and for statements
that the death penalty led to increased violence in society and that an innocent person had likely
been executed. When multivariate models were run controlling for gender, age, race, educational
level, political affiliation, religious salience, and religious frequency, female students remained
significantly less supportive than male students on multiple item indices related to supporting the
death penalty for retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation purposes and significantly more
supportive than male students on multiple item indices related to opposing the death penalty based
on issues of morality and unfair administration and on single item measures opposing the death
penalty due to brutalization and innocence.
 In a third study that analyzed differences for supporting or opposing the death penalty based on
whether a student was a social work major or was majoring in some other discipline, Pasupuleti et al.
(2005) reported that social work majors had significantly lower levels of agreement than other
majors with six of nine statements that measured support for the death penalty based on
deterrence, retribution, law and order, incapacitation, and cost and significantly higher levels of
agreement with five statements that measured opposition to the death penalty based on morality,
unfair application, brutalization, mercy, and innocence. When multivariate models were run
controlling for college major, gender, race, education level, and age, social work majors continued to
have significantly lower levels of agreement than other majors with five of the nine statements that
measured support for the death penalty and significantly higher levels of agreement than other
majors with two of the five statements that measured opposition to the death penalty.

Synthesis of Related Literature and Cases

R.A. No. 7659, also known "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes,

Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for

Other Purposes" was approved on December 13, 1993 in line with the goal "to rationalize and

harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty

for said crimes" as stated in the whereas clauses. This reimposed the capital punishment since the

Marcos era, which was shortly suspended after the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution. In this law,

crimes punishable by death included murder, rape, big-time drug trafficking, kidnapping for ransom,

treason, piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, infanticide, plunder, kidnapping and serious illegal

detention, robbery with violence or intimidation, qualified vehicle theft and arson. This law, which

prevailed prior to the suspension of death penalty on 2006, is very different to the objectives of the

House Bill No. 01pending in the House of Representatives. The said bill, known as "An Act Imposing the

Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9346, Entitled "An

Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" and Amending Act No. 3815, as
amended, otherwise known as the "Revised Penal Code," and other Special Penal Laws, has drawn

criticisms for only including drug-related offenses as compared to the previous iterations of imposition

of death penalty, which coincides with current policy standing of incumbent President Rodrigo

RoaDuterte.

Historically, capital punishment has been used in almost every part of the world. Currently, the

large majority of countries have either abolished or discontinued the practice. In the Philippines,

question whether capital punishment will have a deterrent effect in crimes or will just decrease the

value of human life.

Whereas on 23rd of September 2002, in Pagdayawon vs. The Secretary of Justice the Philippine

Supreme Court dismissed questions on the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law (Republic Act No.

7659), in relation to the Lethal Injection Law (R.A. 8177). The Philippine Supreme Court noted:

1. The death penalty is not a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. It is an exercise of

the state’s power to secure society against the threatened and actual evil.

2. The offenses for which RA 7659 provides the death penalty satisfy the element of heinousness

by specifying the circumstances which generally qualify a crime to be punishable by death.

3. RA 7659 provides both procedural and substantial safeguards to insure its correct

application.

4. The Constitution does not require that a positive manifestation in the form of a higher

incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven before the death penalty

may be prescribed. Congress is authorized under the Constitution to determine when the

elements of heinousness and compelling reasons are present, and the Court would exceed its

own authority if it questioned the exercise of such discretion.

 The case of Leo Echegaray, the first Filipino to be meted death penalty through lethal injection

after the reinstatement of death penalty in 1993, has sparked controversy with its implementation.

Echegaray was accused rape of his 10-year-old stepdaughterRodessaand was convicted by Branch 104

of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City on 7 September 1994, with the death sentence automatically

reviewed by the Supreme Court and affirmed on 25 June 1996. He filed a motion for appeal, which but

was denied. The debate for and against the death penalty had been vigorous after his case. In fact, in

Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice, the Philippines Supreme Court noted:

A last note. In 1922, the famous Clarence Darrow predicted that "x xx the question of capital

punishment has been the subject of endless discussion and will probably never be settled so long

as men believe in punishment."In our clime and time when heinous crimes continue to be

unchecked, the debate on the legal and moral predicates of capital punishment has been

regrettably blurred by emotionalism because of the unfaltering faith of the pro and anti-death

partisans on the right and righteousness of their postulates. To be sure, any debate, even if it is

no more than an exchange of epithets is healthy in a democracy. But when the debate

deteriorates to discord due to the overuse of words that wound, when anger threatens to turn

the majority rule to tyranny, it is the especial duty of this Court to assure that the guarantees of

the Bill of Rights to the minority fully hold. As Justice Brennan reminds us "x xx it is the very

purpose of the Constitutionand particularly the Bill of Rightsto declare certain values

transcendent, beyond the reach of temporary political majorities."Man has yet to invent a better

hatchery of justice than the courts. It is a hatchery where justice will bloom only when we can

prevent the roots of reason to be blown away by the winds of rage. The flame of the rule of law

cannot be ignited by rage, especially the rage of the mob which is the mother of unfairness. The
 business of courts in rendering justice is to be fair and they can pass their litmus test only when

they can be fair to him who is momentarily the most hated by society.

However, on 24th of June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. 9346

entitled ‘An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines’. This law is equally

important because for more than a decade, the country never used capital punishment as a matter of

recognizing the mandate of the country to fulfill its obligations with the international community, as well

as to preserve the sanctity of human life and extend the right to life even to criminals who committed

heinous crimes. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the

United Nations (UN) General Assembly recognizes and upholds fundamental rights, including the right to

life. The Philippines is also bound by the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR), a UN Treaty that the country signed in 2006 and ratified a year later without

reservations. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 and enforced in 1976, the ICCPR obligates

countries that ratified it to protect and preserve basic human rights, primarily the right to life. Having

signed and ratified the protocol, the Philippines commits to the abolition of death penalty definitively.

R.A. No. 9346, however, as explained in the book of Leonor Boado "Notes and Cases On The

Revised Penal Code (Books 1 and 2)", states that it:

"...merely modifies the penalty imposable for the crime covered by R.A. No. 7659 but does not

affect the provision itself on how the crime is committed. It does not affect the provision of R.A.

7659 on Art. 267 making the killing, rape, torture, ransom-payment, etc., of the victim as

qualifying circumstances in kidnapping. It merely made the penalty imposable thereon as

reclusion perpetua. However, for all intents and purposes, the graduation of penalty between

simple kidnapping and kidnapping with homicide has been erased. Thus, it does not make any
 difference now whether or nor the kidnap victim is killed or raped. It can therefore be asserted

that the new law is an absolutory cause insofar as the penalty is concerned because the

kidnapper can now go ahead and kill the victim after ransom is paid for impunity for the penalty

will be the same anyway. The same can be said of other provisions of the Revised Penal Code

and of the special laws such as qualified carnapping." (p. 210)

Also from the same book, he explained how those convicted of death penalty are ineligible for

parole:

The Indeterminate Sentence Law prescribes that "the court shall sentence the accused to an

indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which, in view of the attending circumstances,

could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be

within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense." The

purpose of the prescription of minimum and maximum periods is to effect the privilege granted

under the same law, for prisoners who have served the minimum penalty to be eligible for parole

per the discretion of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, Thus, convicts sentenced to suffer

death penalty or life imprisonment are ineligible under that law, as are persons sentenced to

reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty without minimum or maximum periods. (People vs.

Tubongbanua) (p. 211)

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon (G.R. 170236, 31 August 2006) involves an

accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,

the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the

penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate

Sentence Law.
 The case of People of the Philippines vs. Santos (G.R. 172322, 8 September 2006) involves the

rape of a 5-year old child. The accused was meted the penalty of death because rape committed against

a ‘child below seven (7) years old’ is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the

imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was also

reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

The case of People vs. Salome (G.R. 169077, 31 August 2006) involves a rape of a 13-year old girl

(who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with the aid of a bladed weapon. The imposable

penalty should have been death, but with the abolition of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court

reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua (G.R. 171271, 31 August 2006) involves

the murder of a victim who suffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her chest, heart and

lungs. Considering the existence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the

aggravating circumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigating

circumstance, the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition of the

death penalty law, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

In Mateo, the Supreme Court first allowed an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeals in

criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower

but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave

rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment

is imposed). Before, cases involving the said penalties are raised on automatic review directly to the

Supreme Court.
 While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where

the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it

proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death,

reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to

provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme

Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must

be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior

determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the

possibility of an error of judgment. If the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as

the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case

to the Supreme Court for its final disposition.

Statistics would disclose that within the eleven-year period since the re-imposition of the death

penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed capital punishment in approximately

1,493, out of which 907 cases have been passed upon in review by the Court. In the Supreme Court,

where these staggering numbers find their way on automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in

only 230 cases comprising but 25.36% of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or 64.61% of

the cases, the judgment has been modified through an order of remand for further proceedings, by the

application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or by a reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction

by the Court of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua has been made in no less than 483 cases or

53.25% of the total number. The Court has also rendered a judgment of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases.

In sum, the cases where the judgment of death has either been modified or vacated consist of an
astounding 71.77% of the total of death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court on automatic

review that translates to a total of six hundred fifty-one (651) out of nine hundred seven (907)

appellants saved from lethal injection.

Literature Overview Regarding capital punishment in the continent of Asia, existing literature is to be
found without difficulties. This includes books, reports and studies focusing on various Asian countries,
stretching over different time frames. The authors in this research field all originates from different
backgrounds and some of them from different culture. They are often working for world-known
universities and their professional backgrounds are diverse. However, sources which alone focus on
Asian countries without mentioning western countries are rare. David T. Johnson and Franklin E. Zimring
(2009, Passim) have contributed to the topic of capital punishment by pointing out that the huge human
population and unrecorded executions, are dominant factors of why Asia is the leading continent of
legally justified executions. “The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change and the Death
Penalty in Asia” opens the issue of capital punishment for people who have limited knowledge about
Asia, with the use of case studies including the Philippines and the People’s 13 Republic of China. The
authors stress a diversity within Asia and mentions the concept of Asian unity: a concept created by the
West as an attempt to understand the Asian cultures and their way of thinking regarding morality,
human rights, and the death penalty. Considering that China has a tendency of hidden statistics, the
authors mostly clarify what society does not know about capital punishment in Asia and not what is
actually taking place (Johnson and Zimring, 2009:18f). Johnson and Zimring offers an excellent source of
background information about the history of the practice of capital punishment and violation of human
rights in China and the Philippines. For a global view on capital punishment Roger Hood and Carolyn
Hoyle (2015: Passim), contribute with their research through a general perspective and brings up the
question of capital punishment in law and practice. The authors explore the ethics behind the death
penalty and the exclusion of the vulnerable, such as minors and pregnant women (Hood and Hoyle,
2015:148). Hood and Hoyle’s publication is relevant for this thesis since it provides an aspect from the
law-making procedures. The publication also offers a more updated perspective of the death penalty
and human rights in China and the Philippines, which accordingly provides important aspects useful
when conducting this research. One concept which Hood and Hoyle discusses is Asian Values, which very
much like Asian unity, puts a label on the moral values of Asian countries. This concept claims that Asian
countries have a different approach on human rights and the value of a life and is relevant to this thesis
as it questions western countries approach on Asian countries regarding their stands in human rights
(Hood and Hoyle, 2015:121). The concept of Asian values will be fully presented in the Findings chapter.
Various publications and articles focusing on the human rights perspective on capital punishment will be
of considerable use when conducting this thesis as they pinpoint and bring light into the research
questions. William A. Schabas (1998:799) article “International Law and Abolition of the Death Penalty”
mentions the important factor of international law and the United Nations Human Rights System.
Schabas (1998:799) discusses various, essential documents for the study and notices a trend in
international laws towards the abolition of capital punishment. The issue of human rights violations
becomes an important aspect in this article and is therefore useful in conducting this thesis as it
provides with human rights policies, which could assist in the research of human rights violations in
China and the Philippines (Schabas, 1998:799). 14 Dongwook (2016: Passim) and Mathias (2013: Passim)
adds the condition of how capital punishment can be understood from the viewpoint of INGOs and how
the abolition of the death penalty can be approached in Asian countries. Kim Dongwook's (2016:606)
approach on the abolition of capital punishment in the Philippines adds a vital clue to this thesis as
Dongwook (2016:606) examines the history of the Philippines and the country's mixed feelings regarding
the death penalty. In the article “The Sacralization of the Individual: Human Rights and the Abolition of
the Death Penalty”, Matthew Mathias (2013: Passim) investigates what sources have caused the trend
of abolition of the death penalty in Asia and connects this to that the majority of the countries which
have implemented abolition are democracies. Mathias (2013:1248) demonstrates that this parallel could
be a consequence of the rise of human rights movements and organizations, which touches the research
questions of this thesis. His articles are thus important for this research because it contributes to the
issue of capital punishment from a human rights approach. Authors like Ian Clark (2005: Passim) add the
concept of legitimacy to this thesis. This concept encompasses the right to act or rule and is powerful in
political contexts. According to Clark (2005:12) definitions of legitimacy are not vital for the
understanding of the concept. At the same time Clark (2005:12) argues that definitions are not
necessarily bad because the approach on legitimacy differs between countries which makes definitions a
helpful tool for the understanding of legitimacy. Clark (2005:12) also mentions that legitimacy has strong
bonds to political brokerage and that legitimacy contests are common within the political arena. In
contrast, Peter Stillman (1974:38) presents different definitions which can ‘measure’ the amount of
legitimacy of an actor. Stillman’s definition stresses that it is the results of an actor which needs to be
considered and not the intentions. This thesis will apply Stillman's definition of legitimacy as it
contributes with the understanding of structures and norms within the case studies which is needed to
answer the research questions.
References:
http://www.amnesty.org.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/Philippines_DP_Criminality_asa350091997en1.pdf

https://www.rappler.com/nation/236090-guevarra-backs-death-penalty-somehow-deter-crimes?
fbclid=IwAR2R_D-GegAJa6ikxZtBZuJFwvR04dDpe3SpexhghqAakUl1ZXh_Ud1m5nI

https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/balikbayan/159492-death-penalty-overseas-filipinos

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015624952

https://www.scribd.com/document/347640882/DEATH-PENALTY-IN-THE-PHILIPPINES-A-COMPARATIVE-
STUDY-RESEARCH-PROPOSAL-1-docx#download

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71e5/220fa7d49b7e92587515514b580f446d4be6.pdf