ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

Introduction
Death penalty is a type of punishment where it practices putting a person to death for
committing a crime. Crimes punishable by death are murder, crimes against humanity, treason
and more. Execution includes beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, and shooting
in the back of the head by a firing squad. Some countries execute 18 years old below as long as
a crime punishable by death has been committed. But before they are executed, they are
imprisoned known as “death row” unaware of when their time is up. Death penalty was once
legal in the Philippines, it was at the time of the previous President Ferdinand Marcos in 1926
using an electric chair or ‘silya elektrika’ in the past. But later on in the year 2006 it was deemed
to be too vicious and was disapproved by many and was banned but now President Rodrigo
Duterte is bringing it back, and for what?
Pro-death penalty would say that death penalty should be legalized so that criminals would get
what they deserve and that no criminals would ever cross the road. But they are only looking at
one side of the argument. There should be a few things to consider before agreeing to the
death penalty such as the situation of the person. There must be a reason why that person
decided to commit those crimes; being threatened to do so or wasn’t conscious about what he
is doing and many more or they are just accused falsely. Putting someone into death penalty
does not only punish the person however it also punishes their family and friends to loss
someone they love, which is something they shouldn’t be facing as they did nothing wrong.
Death penalty can kill the lives of innocent people and we cannot risk that. What if the person
didn’t commit the crime but has poorly defended himself, he would end up dead? If death
penalty is continued, we can’t protect the poor people. It is said that death penalty aims to stop
the crimes but knowing that the person could be innocent and is in a place where he can’t
prove his innocence defeats its purpose. If we pursue the death penalty, isn’t it us who commits
the crime because we are killing innocent people? It only means that we too should be put up
to death penalty, if ever death penalty is legalized. Death penalty is said to give criminals the
punishment they deserve to give justice. But how about killing innocent people, don't they
deserve justice too?
Killing innocent lives bear great feeling of guilt and is said to make people depressed. Death
penalty is irreversible, if we feel sorry for killing an innocent, we can't make anything change
that, hence people get depressed. Everyone that was related to the person being in the death
penalty before or after only suffers. A former executioner stated that once they are involved,
they will suffer depression and guilt and destroyed their lives from drinking and using drugs to
forget what they have done and to feel better for their own sake but even after taking drugs
and drinking they can never forget the fact that they have killed more so if the person they
have killed was an innocent person who did not have any money to defend himself towards the
said crime.
Most of the pro-death penalty said that feeding and providing health care for the prisoners
were costly. But the truth is, the lethal injections and other equipment were more costly. The
expenses include the investigation up until the process. How about the “unsuccessful trials”? It
will surely be added to the expenses. Some states that employing death penalty cost too much
for it just to make sure that it is free from errors. According to the Death Penalty Information
Center, almost all of the states implementing Death Penalty cost them an average of over $100
million every case. It was really experienced by other countries that, death penalty really needs
more time, effort and money. Why does the government not use their effort to provide a better
and improved guidance and counseling to the accused instead of killing them? Even if a person
is sinful, they still have the innate nature of being good. Or maybe why the government didn’t
just improve their management, jails and their personnel? It will surely cost less rather than
when Death Penalty is being sought. “Professors Richard Moran and Joseph Ellis estimated that
the money it would take to implement the death penalty in New York for just five years would
be enough to fund 250 additional police officers and build prisons for 6,000 inmates.” Here in
our country, many people will not afford to fight for their cases. What if those people are
innocent? How can they fight for their rights?
“Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty”, according to a famous saying. But even when
proven guilty to support death penalty is to take away an individual’s hope to repent and to
change. As Pope John Paul II said, a sign of hope is the increasing recognition that hate dignity
of life must never be taken away. God created human beings naturally good and according to
His likeness, it's just the influence of our world that makes us do things against His will. God
believes that everyone can change and everyone will change. Every individual deserves a
second chance to learn from their mistakes. Death Penalty ends the process of healing for new
and better person. We must support a person’s reformation and growth with a welcoming
embrace to a new society, with them not forgetting their past deeds but to learn and accept it,
open to develop as a reformed citizen with another chance given for them. Everyone
misbehaves, everyone will do something wrong and yet it is known as part of growing up. When
humans made a mistake, God didn't kill them. Instead, He sent His only son to be a sign of hope
to us humans that we can be forgiven and that we can change when we confess to Him our
sins. Just imagine how God felt when His children made mistakes but still, He decided to send
His begotten son for us. Therefore, why kill people who did something wrong? Why can't we do
the same as children of God, and forgive if proven guilty. As what have Pope John Paul II has
remarked in the Evangelism Vitae, execution is not only the way to protect the society from
criminals. Even if in the old testaments there are passages about taking someone’s life, still, the
old and new testaments’ teachings was to “protect life, practice mercy and reject vengeance”.
As per the teachings about Life in the Book of Genesis it says to us that everyone’s life is a
precious gift from God. (Genesis 2:7; 21-23), all life should respect and protected. A reading
from Genesis 4:15, "But the LORD said to him, 'Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer
vengeance seven times over.' Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him
would kill him." Instead of ending Cain’s life when he killed Abel, God spared Cain’s life instead
by putting a mark on him. We can also say that God's purpose had focused on preventing the
never-ending cycle of revenge to which humans are prone. Religion is based on forgiveness and
compassion in addition to that many religious people know that one of the Ten
Commandments is “thou shalt not kill”. It is a clear instruction given that we do not have the
right to take away people’s life. If we were to put someone to death for killing people, then
what makes us different from those criminals? No matter how iniquitous a person is, it does not
give us the permission to make him lose his fundamental right to life.
Pro-death penalty said that it deters crimes. Yet, it does not even have a credible proof.
Scientific studies have failed to provide sufficient evidences to prove that death penalty does
deter crimes. How can we make sure that death penalty stops crimes? There is no even a
significant change in the rates of the cases in the United States where the death penalty is
employed. It was stated that countries implementing death penalty and countries not
implementing death penalty does not have any difference with crime cases or murder cases.
One also stated that only a few murderers are caught and those murderers are self-destructive
who likes to be executed. There is also another type of murderer who plans their murder
avoiding the execution but if they want to get caught, they will set up evidence where they
would ‘purposely’ be caught.
There are several ways to punish people who committed crimes, however is death really way to
punish criminals and stop their doing? It has never been proven that death penalty is the
solution to stop all crimes. Nietzsche, a philosopher, wants us, when fighting monsters take
care not to become one yourself. We can't blame the victim’s family for seeking revenge as
justice. Of Course, they would want to pursue death penalty so that the criminal would get
what they deserve. But didn't they just committed a crime for killing the criminal? That is they
too should undergo death penalty. Just like what Nietzsche said, be careful not to become one
yourself. Instead of giving victims a healing, they settle more with punishment. “Revenge is not
the answer. The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death.” As said by Marie
Deans, whose mother-in-law was murdered. She said that death penalty won't relieve their
suffering. So why couldn’t we just settle for the humane punishment? There is a law called
reclusion perpetual which is lifetime imprisonment and basically similar to death penalty
because the criminal is derived from all his rights except the most basic one. It is very important
to look at the other side of the argument and consider other punishments when it is more
human and doesn't go against their right to live. Why do we have to go too far just so that they
receive the right punishment when there are far other things much better punishment than
death?
Conclusion
In conclusion, Death Penalty is an unfair punishment and should not be implemented here in
the Philippines. It is not practical to legalize death penalty because it is not practical that our
 country should invest in time and money just to give the right punishment to criminals. It is
more practical for the government to invest their time and money to adding more light to
roads, upgrading security systems and improve rehabilitation centers so that criminals may
change for the better. Death penalty is not necessary to our country. Knowing that there are
other types of punishment and death penalty is just like any other punishment, why should we
settle with a punishment that goes too far and deprives us of our right to live? If it is just like
any other punishment, why should we settle with the inhumane punishment when there is a
better and more human punishment, after all we are humans. Death penalty is not beneficial
for our country. As discussed in our argumentative essay, a country that has legalized death
penalty and a country that did not legalized death penalty doesn't have any differences
amongst their crime cases recorded. There is also not enough evidence that death penalty
make sures that it stops crimes from happening. Learning from that statement, wouldn't it be
useless to legalize death penalty when there is no enough evidence that it does deter crimes?
What if there are criminals who are not afraid of death, the purpose of death penalty has just
been defeated because it is said that it discourages crimes when someone just committed. It
will not surely bring any positive effect to the nation and to its people particularly, to the
accused ones. With this, we do not support the implementation of Death Penalty.