I.

Introduction

Capital punishment has been a debatable issue for years, with its concepts of deterrence,
punishments, and retribution being disagreed upon. Despite arguments that capital punishment is a strong
deterrent to violent crime, capital punishment should be abolished because it is an ethically questionable
punishment and it can punish the innocent irreversibly. It is the ultimate violation of human rights. It is
the state's deliberate and cold-blooded murder of a human being. This cruel, inhumane, and degrading
punishment is carried out in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as stated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Capital punishment violates the constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, as
well as the rights to due process and equal protection under the law. Furthermore, this paper believes that
the state should not grant itself the rights to murder human beings, particularly when it does so with
premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, and in an unfair and
discriminating manner. Capital punishment is also an intolerable violation of civil liberty and is
irreconcilable with our democratic system's fundamental values. In theory, capital punishment is
uncivilized; in fact, it is unjust and inequitable. This paper strives to prevent executions and seek the
elimination of death punishment through litigation, legislation, and activism against this inhumane and
violent institution.

II. Body

Capital punishment, or what is widely known as the "death penalty," is the sentence of execution
for murder and some other capital crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death. Capital
punishment has been a tool that has been used for centuries to punish those who commit heinous crimes.
For it to be performed, there should be a legal trial. Capital crimes fall into this category, like murder,
adultery, rape, and some types of fraud. Capital punishment may be prescribed by Congress or any state
legislature for murder and other capital crimes (US Legal, n.d.). Beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal
injection, and shooting in the back of the head by a firing squad are all methods of execution. Some
countries execute people under the age of 18 if they have committed a capital offense. But before they are
executed, they are imprisoned on what is known as "death row," unaware of when their time is up. Using
an electric chair, or "silya elektrika," capital punishment was once legal in the Philippines under previous
President Ferdinand Marcos in 1926. But later on in the year 2006, it was deemed to be too vicious, was
disapproved by many, and was banned.

The assumption can be considered the only fact that rings in people's minds when they make the
statement that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. However, it should be noted that assumptions
are far from facts. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that such a capital punishment can serve
as a deterrent. It is widely assumed that the great fear of receiving such punishment or justice can deter
murder or other crimes that deserve this form of punishment. If this were true, then people would not do
drugs or speed on highways because of the fear of being prosecuted. Human behavior and history have
shown that rational human instincts do not prevent people from committing crimes. If it did, people
would never have used the death penalty; they would simply inform the population of the law, and they
would be so afraid that they would never commit a crime again. It is unfortunate that there are those who
commit crimes out of passion and care less of the possible repercussions. With or without capital
punishment, people will be bound to commit crimes. As a result, it is important to emphasize that the
death penalty option is never conclusive evidence or justification in the criminal justice system as a
deterrent in preventing people from committing crimes. In Canada, the act of carrying out capital
punishment has proved to be an ineffective form of deterrence. In 1976, the country decided to abolish
this form of punishment and sought alternative means of punishing capital crimes. A year earlier, there
were around 721 homicide cases committed in the country (Chandlier, 2017). In 2001, Canada had a
total of 554 cases of homicide, which translated to a 23% decline in homicides committed before the
abolition of capital punishment. If capital punishment was truly a deterrent, one might wonder why there
were 167 more cases of homicide committed after the country implemented the death penalty. In 1999,
5.7 million homicides per 100,000 people were recorded, while the rate of homicide in the U.S. was
nearly three times lower, with 1.8 million people in the same demographic sample (Banner & Banner,
2018). Along with the 110 states that have declared capital punishment illegal, the European non-death
penalty nation’s data reveals that the U.S. has more than two times the number of homicides as Europe
(Shin, 2017). This is another apt example of nations that do not have capital punishment having lower
rates of homicide than their counterparts that enforce capital punishment. However, it is worth noting that
these statistics do not mean that countries that carry out capital punishment cause a brutalization effect.
They do, in the real sense, show the evidence that deterrence is not in any way causing a decline in the
number of reported homicide cases per year.

The capital punishment is harsh and unusual. It is harsh because it is a relic from the early days of
penology, when slavery, branding, and other forms of corporal punishments were prevalent. Executions,
like those barbaric practices, have no place in a civilized society. It is unusual because, among all
Western developed nations, only the United States imposes this punishment. It's also unusual since just a
small percentage of convicted murderers in the United States receive the death sentence (Mercier, 2019).
Capital punishment is a violation of the rule of law. Its implementation is sometimes arbitrary and always
irrevocable, depriving an individual of the opportunity to benefit from new evidence or new legislation
that would warrant the reversal of a conviction or the abolition of a death sentence (Hay, 2017). Capital
punishment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. It is used arbitrarily and
discriminatorily. It is disproportionately imposed upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who
are people of color, and on those who are poor and uneducated and concentrated in specific geographic
regions of the country (Shaw, 2018). Capital punishment is not an effective method of crime control.
When asked to list the elements that, in their opinion, lessen the prevalence of violent crime, police chiefs
throughout the world mentioned curbing drug usage and placing more policemen on the street, as well as
lengthier sentences and gun control. They ranked the death sentence as the least effective. Politicians that
advocate for the use of capital punishment as a tool of crime control deceive the public and conceal their
own incapacity to recognize and face the root causes of crime (Lirag et al., 2018). Capital punishment is
a waste of limited resources. It wastes the time and energy of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
juries, and courtroom and law enforcement officials. It unduly burdens the criminal justice system, and it
is therefore ineffective as a tool for society's control of violent crime. Capital punishment consumes
limited funds that could be utilized to prevent and solve crime (as well as provide education and jobs)
(Isenberg, 2017). Opposition capital punishment does not imply a lack of sympathy for murder victims.
Murder, on the other hand, indicates a disregard for human life. Murder is repugnant because life is
valuable and death is irrevocable, and a policy of state-authorized killings is immoral. It demonstrates the
tragic ineffectiveness and brutality of violence as a solution to challenging social problems. Many murder
victims oppose state-sponsored violence to avenge the deaths of their loved ones. Unfortunately,
lawmakers and prosecutors have frequently disregarded these victims, preferring to highlight the views of
pro-death penalty family members (Lee, 2019). Changes in death sentencing have predominantly been
cosmetic. The Supreme Court admitted in the early 1970s that the defects in death penalty laws had not
been significantly altered by the shift from unrestrained discretion to "guided discretion," and such so-
called "reforms" in death sentencing merely mask the impermissible randomness of a process that results
in an execution (Carrington, 2020). A society that respects life does not deliberately kill human
beings. An execution is a violent public spectacle of governmental homicide that encourages killing to
address societal problems—the worst imaginable example to set for citizens, particularly children.
Governments across the world have frequently sought to justify their lethal rage by extolling the apparent
advantages that such killings would bring to the rest of society. The benefits of capital punishment are
illusory, but the killings and disintegration of societal dignity that results are real (Lee, 2019). To further
prove that capital punishment is ineffective, people can consider states to elucidate the assertions. Ten of
the twelve states without capital punishment have homicide rates lower than the national average. Of
those states that use capital punishment, 50% had a homicide rate below the national average of 6.3 in
1998, according to the Death Penalty Information Office (2020). Between 1978 and 1998, homicide
rates in states that used capital punishment were 48–100% higher than in states that did not use capital
punishment (Bedau, 2019). This is to say that states that do not have capital punishment have a much
lower rate of homicide than states that do have capital punishment.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, capital punishment is an unjust punishment that should not be implemented here in the
Philippines. It is not practical to legalize capital punishment because it is not feasible for our country to
invest time and money merely to give offenders the appropriate punishment. It is more practical for the
government to invest time and money on improving road lighting, upgrading security systems, and
improving rehabilitation facilities so that criminals may change for the better. The death penalty is not
necessary for our country. Why should people accept a punishment that goes too far and deprives us of
our right to exist, knowing that there are some alternative sorts of punishment? The death penalty is not
beneficial for our country. As this paper mentioned, there are no differences in documented crimes
between countries that have implemented the death penalty and those that have not. There is also
insufficient evidence that capital punishment prevents crime. Based on that remark, wouldn't legalizing
capital punishment be pointless if there wasn't enough proof that it worked to deter crime? What if some
criminals are not afraid of death? The death penalty's objective has just been undermined because it is
meant to deter crimes after they have already been committed. It will almost certainly have no positive
impact on the country and its citizens, particularly the accused. With this in mind, this paper does not
advocate for the use of capital punishment.
 REFERENCES

Banner & Banner, (2018). The Death Penalty An American History.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674010833

Bedau, H. (2019). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reconsideration.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5690&context=jclc

Carrington, F., (2020), Questioning Capital Punishment.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/328106027.pdf

Chandlier Cynthia, (2017), Fundamental Statistics for College Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.
https://www.elib.gov.ph/results.php?f=author&q=Guerrero+Chan+dlier%2C+Cynthia+R.

Death Penalty Information Office (2020). https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2020

Douglas Hay (2017), Death Penalty in 2017.

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/876/m

Isenberg, I., (2017), Capital Punishment: A Century of Discontinuous Debate.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7360&context=jclc

Lee, J. (2019), The Advantages and Disadvantages of Death Penalty.

https://research.lpubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CRIM-2015-004-Re-Imposition-
of-Deathy-Penalty.pdf

Lirag, A. et al., (2018), The Effects of Peer Pressure to the Behavior of High School Students in
La Consolacion College Tanauan for the S.Y. 2018-2019.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1138838.pdf

Mercier, G. (2019), Death Penalty: The Ultimate Denial of Human Rights, url: https://goo.gl/9H2BCm

Shaw (2018). Moratorium on the Death Penalty.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=njlsp
Shin, H. (2017). Is the Death of the Death Penalty Near? The Impact of Atkins and Roper on the

Future of Capital Punishment for Mentally Ill Defendants.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss1/11/

US Legal, Death Penalty Law and Legal Definition, url: https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-penalty-

law/