The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the act of killing or executing a person, who was
found guilty of a serious crime, by the government. 

Without a doubt, executions are considered the ultimate punishment for a crime, because there
is no repeal from death. The logical alternative for capital punishment is life in prison without
parole, yet a lot of nations still perform the death penalty. This is because the debate whether
capital punishment is ethical and justifiable is still widely disputed. 

Therefore, let’s review each reason for and against capital punishment to determine if it is
ethical and logical. 

Reasons For Capital Punishment 

1. Prison: There are three purposes for prison. First, prison separates criminals for the
safety of the general population. Second, prison is a form of punishment. Third and
finally, the punishment of prison is expected to rehabilitate prisoners; so that when
prisoners are released from prison, these ex-convicts are less likely to repeat their
crimes and risk another prison sentence. The logic for capital punishment is that prisons
are for rehabilitating convicts who will eventually leave prison, and therefore prison is not
for people who would never be released from prisons alive.

2. Cost of Prison: Typically, the cost of imprisoning someone for life is much more
expensive than executing that same person. However with the expensive costs of
appeals in courts of law, it is arguable if capital punishment is truly cost effective when
compared with the cost of life imprisonment.

3. Safety: Criminals who receive the death penalty are typically violent individuals.
Therefore for the safety of the prison’s guards, other prisoners, and the general public (in
case a death row inmate escapes prison), then logic dictates that safety is a reason for
capital punishment.

4. Deters Crime: There is no scientific proof that nations with capital punishment have a
lower rate of crime, therefore the risk of the death penalty does not seem to deter crime.

5. Extreme Punishment: The logic is that the more severe the crime, then the more severe
the punishment is necessary. But what is the most severe punishment: lifetime in prison
or execution? I am not sure that anyone alive is qualified to answer this question.

6. Appropriate Punishment: It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should

equal the crime, if possible. This is also known as "an eye for eye" justice. Therefore
using this logic, the appropriate punishment for murder is death.

7. Vengeance: Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or
retribution is the only option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based
 on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification.

Reasons Against Capital Punishment 

1. Prison: It is often believe that prison is a viable alternative to executing a person.

However as mentioned above, even imprisonment for life with no chance of parole still
has issues.

2. Not Humane: Killing a person is not humane, even if the criminal is not humane. What is
humane is subjective to a person’s upbringing, education, beliefs, and religion. Therefore
different people interpret what is humane differently. For instance, some people
consider putting a pet asleep is humane if the animal is in great pain, but doing the same
thing for a person is often not considered humane. Other people would not kill an animal
even for food. In some cultures, mercy killings are honorable.

3. Fairness: The life of the criminal can not compensate for the crime committed.
Basically, two wrongs do not make a right.

4. Pain of Death: Executing a person can be quick and painless, or executing a person can
be slow and painful. The method, and therefore the pain, of capital punishment is also
subjective to society’s norms. Some cultures prefer suffering, others do not.

5. Violates Human Rights: Some groups of people deem death a violation of the person’s
right to live. Other groups of people disagree that the death penalty is a cruel and
unusual punishment. There is no clear definition of what human rights are, so there will
always be disagreements with whether it violates human rights.

6. Wrongly Convicted: Some people executed were proven too late to be wrongly convicted
of a crime that they did not commit.

7. Playing God: Some people believe that all deaths should be natural. Other people believe
murder is a part of nature.

8. Salvation: Felons have less time and likelihood of finding spiritual salvation if they are
executed. The obvious question for this reasoning is salvation a valid concern for the
state?

9. Forgiveness: Criminals have less time and likelihood to seek forgiveness for their crimes
if they are executed. Again, is forgiveness a valid concern for the government?

10. Amends: Executing someone decreases the time and likelihood for the criminal to repair
any damage from the crime. Should the state be concerned over this too?

11. Family Hardship: It is often said that the family members of the executed needlessly
suffer too, yet the crime itself has victims and family members too.
Reasons For and Against Capital Punishment 

1. Religion: Different religions have different beliefs concerning capital punishment. Even

 individual religions have contradictory beliefs. For instance, the Bible clear states the
death penalty as valid and just, yet at the same time murder is not allowed and salvation
must be offered. Since not everyone is of the same religion and each person can even
interpret the same religion differently, the role of religion concerning the death penalty is
very unclear. This is why governments should separate state and church.
2. Morality: The morality of killing a person is also subjective for each person. Throughout
the life of an individual, their beliefs and morality can and most likely will change.

As we can plainly see, there are several good reasons to support and oppose capital
punishment. Also, there are several bad reasons to be for and against the death penalty too.
Furthermore, the general population has a wide range of beliefs concerning capital punishment.
Even these beliefs of the general population are subject to change. 

In the end, it is what the majority of society currently believes to be moral that should be
reflected by the actions of their government. 

Capital punishment, also dubbed the "death penalty," is the pre-meditated and planned taking of
a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person.

Passions in the US are sharply divided, and equally strong among both supporters and
protesters of the death penalty.
Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is
the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human
being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel
treatment."

Ads
Wartune Strategy-RPG MMO
r2games.com/
Most Visually Stunning & Exciting MMORPG, No Download, Free to Play!

Prices Of iPad Tablets

www.ayosdito.ph/iPad
Find Price-worthy iPads Here! Which iPad Fits Your Budget?

Free Prophecy For You

yourpersonalprophecy.com
Get God's Plan For You in 2014. Receive Your Free Written Prophecy!

 Criminal Defense Cases

 Criminal Conviction
 Bail Bond
 Criminal History
 Criminal Jail
Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that
"...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer
by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It
cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the
murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in
self defense to protect the innocent."

And Catholic Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, writes "...the death penalty
diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we
can teach that killing is wrong by killing."

Death Penalty in the U.S.

The death penalty has not always been practiced in the U.S. althoughReligiousTolerance.org
states that in the U.S., "about 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times."
The Depression era 1930s, which saw a historic peak in executions, was followed by a dramatic
decrease in the 1950s and 1960s. No executions occurred in the US between 1967 to 1976.

Ads
Photo Albums on Facebook
www.facebook.com
Upload and Share Funny Photos to Facebook. Create a Profile Now!

Iraqi Law Consultant

www.iraqilawconsultant.com
Recht Irak Irak Rechtsordnung

In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the death penalty, and converted the death
sentences of hundreds of death row inmates to life in prison.

In 1976, another Supreme Court ruling found capital punishment to be Constitutional. From
1976 through June 3, 2009, 1,167 people have been executed in the U.S.

 
 Latest Developments
The vast majority of democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have abolished capital
punishment over the last fifty years, but United States, most democracies in Asia, and almost all
totalitarian governments retain it.

Crimes that carry the death penalty vary greatly worldwide from treason and murder to theft. In
militaries around the world, courts-martial have sentenced capital punishments also for
cowardice, desertion, insubordination and mutiny.

Per Amnesty International's 2008 death penalty annual report, "at least 2,390 people were
known to have been executed in 25 countries and at least 8,864 people were sentenced to death
in 52 countries around the world:"
 Executions in 2008, by Country

 China - 1,718

 Iran - 346

 Saudi Arabia - 102

 United States - 37

 Pakistan - 36

 Iraq - 34

 Vietnam - 19

 Afghanistan - 17

 North Korea - 15

 All others - 66
Source - Amnesty International
As of October 2009, capital punishment in the US is officially sanctioned by 34 states, as well as
by the federal government. Each state with legalized capital punishment has different laws
regarding its methods, age limits and crimes which qualify.
From 1976 through October 2009, 1,177 felons were executed in the U.S., distributed among the
states as follows:

 
 Executions from 1976 - Oct 2009, by State

 Texas - 442 (38%)

 Virginia - 103

 Oklahoma - 91

 Florida - 68

 Missouri - 67

 Georgia - 46

 Alabama - 44

 North Carolina - 43

 South Carolina - 42

 Ohio - 32

 Louisiana - 27

 Arkansas - 27

 All others - 149

Source: Wikipedia
States and U.S. territories with no current death penalty statute are Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. New Jersey repealed the death
penalty in 2007, and New Mexico in 2009.

Background
The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams illustrates the moral complexities of the death penalty.
Mr. Williams, an author and Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee who was put to death
on December 13, 2005 by lethal injection by the state of California, brought capital punishment
back into prominent public debate.
 Mr. Williams was convicted of four murders committed in 1979, and sentenced to death.
Williams professed innocence of these crimes. He was also co-founder of the Crips, a deadly
and powerful Los Angeles-based street gang responsible for hundreds of murders.

About five years after incarceration, Mr. Williams underwent a religious conversion and, as a
result, authored many books and programs to promote peace and to fight gangs and gang
violence. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and four times for the Nobel
Literature Prize.

Mr. Williams' was a self-admitted life of crime and violence, followed by genuine redemption
and a life of uniquely and unusually good works.

The circumstantial evidence against Williams left little doubt that he committed the four
murders, despite last-minute claims by supporters. There also existed no doubt that Mr.
Williams posed no further threat to society, and would contribute considerable good.

 The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams forced public reflection on the purpose of the death
penalty:

 Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more
harm?

 Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?

 Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder?

 Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal?

 Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim?

Countries that Retain the Death Penalty As of 2008 per Amnesty International, 58 countries,
representing about one-third of all countries worldwide, retain the death penalty for ordinary
capital crimes, including the United States, plus:
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize,
Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica,
Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman,
 Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand,
Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zimbabwe.

The United States is the only westernized democracy, and one of the few democracies
worldwide, to not have abolished the death penalty.

Arguments Against
Arguments commonly made to abolish the death penalty are:

 Death constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the 8th amendment
to the US Constitution. Also, the various means used by the state to kill a criminal are cruel.

 
 The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive
legal counsel, as well as against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.

 
 The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.

 
 Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically,
were killed by the state.

 
 A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.

 
 Killing human life is morally wrong under all circumstances. Some faith groups, such as the
Roman Catholic Church, oppose the death penalty as not being "pro-life."
Ads
DUI / DWI Can be Beat
www.totaldui.com
Keep Your Driving Privileges. Get a Free Case Review!
Work At Home & Make Money
www.surveycompare.com.ph
Turn Spare Time Into Money Today. Earn Extra Cash For Your Opinion!

Countries that Abolished the Death Penalty

As of 2008 per Amnesty International, 139 countries, representing two-thirds of all countries
worldwide, have abolished the death penalty on moral grounds including:

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bhutan,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands,
Costa Rica, Cote D'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Holy
See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Macedonia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco,
Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Norway,
Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino,
Sao Tome And Principe, Senegal, Serbia (including Kosovo), Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Where It Stands
In 2009, a growing chorus of leading voices spoke out about the immorality of the death penalty.
The New York Times opined on June 1, 2009:
"There is no abuse of government power more egregious than executing an innocent man. But
that is exactly what may happen if the United States Supreme Court fails to intervene on behalf
of Troy Davis."

Troy Davis was an African-American sports coach who was convicted of the 1991 killing of a
Georgia police officer. Several years later, seven of nine eyewitnesses who had linked Davis to
the crime changed or entirely recanted their original testimony, claiming police coercion.

Mr,. Davis filed innumerable appeals for new evidence of innocence to be examined in Court, to
little avail. His appeals were vociferously supported with more than 4,000 letters from the likes
of Nobel Peace Prize recipients former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
and the Vatican.
On August 17, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered new hearings for Troy Davis. The first
hearing is set for November 2009. Mr. Davis remains on Georgia's death row.

Exorbitant Cost on States of Capital Punishment

The New York Times also penned in its September 28, 2009 op-ed High Cost of Death Row:
"To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty — it’s immoral, does not deter
murder and affects minorities disproportionately — we can add one more. It’s an economic
drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets.

"It is far from a national trend, but some legislators have begun to have second thoughts about
the high cost of death row."

For instance, the Los Angeles Times reported in March 2009:

"In California, legislators are wrestling with the cost of maintaining the nation's largest death
row even though the state has executed only 13 inmates since 1976. Officials are also debating
construction of a new $395-million death row prison that many lawmakers say the state cannot
afford."

The New York Times reported in September 2009 about California:

"Perhaps the most extreme example is California, whose death row costs taxpayers $114
million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life. The state has executed 13 people
since 1976 for a total of about $250 million per execution."

Death-penalty ban bills based on costs were introduced in 2009, but failed to pass, in New
Hampshire, Maryland, Montana, Maryland, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado. New Mexico
passed death penalty ban legislation on March 18, 2009.

DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS:

This Paper in Memoriam of Sean Burgado

My Precious Nephew - Murdered  

June 7, 1969 to May 21, 1997

 DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS:

Deterrent  or  Revenge

(Pros and Cons)  

INTRODUCTION
 

          What is Capital punishment?  Capital punishment is the death penalty.  It is used today

and was used in ancient times to punish a variety of offenses. Even the bible advocates death

for murder and other crimes like kidnapping and witchcraft.  

            When the word death penalty is used,  it makes yelling and screaming from both sides of

extremist.  One side may say deterrence, while the other side may say,  but you  may execute an

innocent man. 

            Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System  is the issue of

capital punishment or the death penalty.    Capital punishment was legal until 1972, when the

Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia stating that it violated the Eight

and Fourteen Amendments citing cruel and unusual punishment.  However, in 1976, the

Supreme Court reversed itself with Gregg v. Georgia and reinstated the death penalty but not all

states  have the death penalty. 

Thirteen states do not have the death penalty:  Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Iowa, Main,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin.  

AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY (CONS)

Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate

            What would it accomplish to put someone on death row?  The victim is already dead-you

cannot bring him back.  When the opponents feel “fear of death” will prevent one from

committing murder, it is not true because most murders are done on the “heat of passion” when

a person cannot think rationally.  Therefore, how can one even have time to think of  fear in the

heat of passion (Internet)?

ACLU and Murderers Penniless

            The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on executions and

to put an end to state-sanctioned murder in the United States.  They claim it is very disturbing to

anyone who values human life.

            In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch,  the American Bar Association said the quality

of the legal representation is substantial.  Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants end up

penniless by the time their case is up for appeal.  They claim they are treated unfairly.  Most

murderers who do not have any money, receive the death penalty.  Those who live in counties

pro-death penalty are more likely to receive the death penalty.  (Internet).

Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent

Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is

publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow.  A good example is in the

Linberg kidnapping. A number of  states adopted the death penalty for crime like this, but

figures showed kidnapping increased.  Publicity may encourage crime instead of preventing it

(McClellan, G., 1961).

            Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is

inescapable  when based on human judgment .  On the contrary, sometimes defendants insist

on execution.  They feel it is an act of kindness to them.  The argument here is -  Is life

imprisonment a crueler fate?”    Is there evidence supporting the usefulness of the death penalty

securing the life of the citizens (McClellan, G. 1961)?

Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered?  This

argument for continuation of the death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but  it has failed as a

deterrent.  There is no clear evidence  because empirical studies  done in the 50’s by Professor

Thorsten Sellin, (sociologist)  did not  give support  to deterrence (McClellan, G., 1961).

Does not Discourage Crime

            It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime.  This could be a strong

argument if it could be proved that the death penalty discourages murderers and

kidnappers.  There is strong evidence that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all

(McClellan, G., 1961).

Grant McClellan (1961) claims:

                        In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders –fewer

than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire

Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin,

Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington.  Four of

                       these 10 states had abolished the death penalty.

The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to

 fourteen killings per100,000 population were Nevada,

Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them

enforce the death penalty.  The fact is that fear of the

death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate (p. 40).

Conviction of the Innocent Occurs

            The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but  those states have

the most murders, and the states that abolished the death penalty has less.  Conviction of the

innocent does occur and death makes a miscarriage of justice irrevocable.  Two states Maine
and Rhode Island abolished the death penalty because of public shame and remorse after they

discovered they executed  some innocent men.

Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime. 

            The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime.  Through most of history

executions were public and brutal.  Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under

heavy weight.  Crime was more common at that time than it is now.  Evidence shows execution

does not act as a deterrent to capital punishment.

Motives for Death Penalty - Revenge

            According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may be for

revenge.  Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative

to the private revenge of those who feel harmed. 

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)

Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases

Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty

deters murders from killing?  There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters

murderers from killing.  The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should

not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a  reasonable doubt.  Nor should the

abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to

anyway. 

            Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat
of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true.  But  if the

threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease.   

            Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia:

Although some of the studies suggest that the death

penalty may not function as a significantly greater

                       deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing

empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view.

                      

We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders,

            such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of

           death has little or no deterrent effect.  But for many others,

           the death penalty undoubtedly,  is a significant deterrent.

There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder

           for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter

           the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act

          ( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87).

J.      Edgar Hoover, late director of  Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the

following questions:  “Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape

punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that?  Are crime victims in the

United States today the forgotten people of our time?  Do they receive full measure of justice

(as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?  

 A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will,  and make his

last statements, etc.  while some  victims can never do it.  There are many other crimes where

people  are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc.   To some degree at least, the victims right to

freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.

            When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process

who protects his constitutional rights.  What about the victim?  The assailant may have

compassion from investigating officers, families and friends.  Furthermore, the criminal may

have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has

been sinned against.  These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the

criminal (Isenberg, I., 1977).

            The former  Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a speech to Law

enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on  May 12, 1971 (as cited in Isenberg, 1977):            

                        “Our system of criminal law is to minimize human

                         suffering by works or order primarily to forestall

                         violence or aggression. In the question of the death

                         penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will

                         serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law.

 We should weigh the death of the convicted murders

  against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility

  of potential victims to murder (p. 129)

In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about.  Too much

emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all

forgotten. 

Crime Rate Increases

 Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not

working.  Millions have already been killed and will be killed every year.  According to Time

Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States.  Some are knifed, shot, or

assaulted (Internet).   

Crime growth has been going up in the past because of  too much  leniency going hand

in hand with the increased rate of  people being victimized.  There are many loop holes devised

for offenders, and because of that  crime rate has increased drastically.  Between l960 to 1968

crime rate increased 11 times.  More and more people are being  murdered, raped, assaulted,

kidnapped, and robbed, etc. (Isenberg, I., 1997).

Free Will

            When you commit a felony, it is  a matter of free will.  No one is compelled to commit

armed robbery, murder, or rape.  The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions  to

become a killer or being falsely accused of murder.  What he is worried about is being a victim.

Deterrent in 27 States

Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty.  According

to Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent

in 27 states.  When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the

study showed murder rates increased by 100%.  The study also reviewed 14 nations who

abolished the death penalty.   It (the study) claimed murder increased by 7% from five years

before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition (Internet).

 Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich  between the period of 1933 and 1969.  He

concluded  “An additional execution per year may have resulted in  fewer murders  (Bedau, 1982,
p. 323)”. 

The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years.  It is known, with all

the appeals, the death penalty is not swift!  In fact, most murderers feel they most likely will

never be put to death.  If the death penalty was swift and inevitable, there certainly would be a

decrease in homicide rates.  (Internet).

Death Feared

Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will

happen before we act.  If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it

unconsciously.  Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate

would be very low because no one likes to die.  We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can

make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster

and make appeals a shorter process.  The death penalty is important because it could save the

lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982).

In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, “Actually being dead is no different from not being

born, a (non) experience we all had before being born.  But death is not realized.  The process of

dying which is a different matter is usually confused with it.  In turn, dying is feared because

death is expected, even though death is feared because it is confused with dying (p. 338)”.

Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all experience.  Because it

is unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared.  “The life of a man should be sacred to

each other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330)”.

Innocent Executed - no Proof

Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed.  There has never been any
proof of an innocent man being executed!!  A study  by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22

cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed.  However, this study is very

controversial.  Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l2

cases.  There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence.  Moreover,

our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are

protected.  Most likely an innocent person would not be executed (Internet).

Death Penalty Saves Lives

            The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to

abolish the death penalty.  Remember, the death penalty saves lives.  Repeat murders are

eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred.  You must consider the victim as well as the

defendant.

Hugo Bedau (1982) claims: 

The execution of the innocent believed guilty is a

miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever

detected.  But such miscarriage of justice do not

warrant abolition at the death penalty.  Unless the

 moral drawbacks of an activity practice, which include

 the possible death of innocent lives that might be saved

 by it, the activity is warranted.  Most human activities like

 medicine, manufacturing, automobile, and air traffic, sports,

 not to mention wars and revolutions, cause death of

 innocent bystanders.  Nevertheless, advantages outweigh

 the disadvantages, human activities including the penal

 system with all its punishments are morally justified ( p. 323).

            Wesley Lowe states, “As for the penal system, accidentally executing an innocent person,

I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in

exchange for safety.”  He says we risk dying in an accident when we drive a car, and it is

acceptable.  Therefore, risking that someone might be wrongfully executed is worth  saving

thousand’s of innocent people who may be the next victim of murder (Internet).

Death Penalty - Right to Live

            Opponents say the State is like a murder himself.  The argument here is, if execution is

murder, than killing someone in war is murder.  Our country should stop fighting wars.  On the

contrary, is it  necessary to protect the rights of a group of people.  Hence, the death penalty is

vital to protect a person’s right to live!  Is arresting someone same as kidnapping someone?  In

the same, executing someone is not murder, it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal.

Bible Quotes

            Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it

gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring

“Vengeance is mine” (Romans 12:19).  He thus legitimized vengeance and reserved it to

Himself.  However, the Bible also enjoins, “The murderer shall surely be put

to death” (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted whatever

the motive.  Religious tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330).

            All religions believe having life is sacred.  If we deprive someone else life, he only suffers

minor inconvenience;  hence, we cheapen human life—this is where we are at  today.

Death Penalty Deterrent Effect

            If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we will be confronted with

two uncertainties .  If we have the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect, than, the life of

convicted murderers has been expended in vain (from a deterrent point of view)—here is a net

loss.  If we have the death sentence, and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future

victims-(the prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared punishment because they were

deterred).  In this case, the death penalty is a gain, unless the convicted murderer is valued more

highly than that of the unknown victim, or victims (Carrington, F., l978). 

Capital Punishment is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who knowingly

and intentionally commits  murder in  premeditation,  to take lives of others.  Even

though  capital punishment is not used so often, it still is  a threat to the criminal.           

Justice

            Justice requires punishing the guilty even if only some can be punished and sparing the

innocent, even if all are not spared.  Morally, justice must always be preferred to

equality.  Justice cannot ever permit sparing some guilty person, or punishing some innocent

ones, for the sake of equality—because others have been spared or punished.  In practice,

penalties could never be applied if we insisted that they can be inflicted on only a guilty person

unless we are able to make sure that they are equally applied to all other guilty persons.  Anyone

familiar with the law enforcement knows that punishments can be inflicted only on an

unavoidable “shudder” selection of the guilty  (Bedau, H., 1977).

Irwin Isenberg (1977) said,  when you kill a man with premeditation, you do something

different than stealing from him.   “I favor the death penalty as a matter of justice and human

dignity even apart from deterrence.  The penalty must be appropriate to the seriousness of the

crime (p. 135).

Life is Sacred

In an interview with Professor van den Haag, a psychoanalyst and adjunct professor at

New York University,  was questioned,    “Why  do you favor the death penalty?”  His answer was

that the Federal prison had a man sentenced to Life who, since he has been in prison committed

three more murders on three separate occasions .They were prison guards and

inmates.  There’s no more punishment he can receive, therefore, in many cases, the death

penalty is the only penalty that can deter.  He went on   saying “I hold life sacred, and because I

hold it sacred, I feel that anyone who takes some one’s life should know that thereby he

forsakes his own and does not just suffer an inconvenience about being put into prison for

sometime (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 135)

An Eye for an Eye

Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and disregards

society.  Do you agree?  Some people say the that penalty is legalized murder because it is like

“an eye for an eye”.  The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized

and the other is not!  People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily.  People are not

brutalized by punishments  they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish,  the  brutal acts.

Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life?  “Life in

prison” means in six months the parole board can release the man to 12 years in some

states.  “But even if it were real life imprisonment, it’s deterrent effect will never be as great as

that of the death penalty.  The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable penalty.  Because of

that, it is the one that people fear the most (Isenberg, I., 1977).

            The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was an

acceptable mess of protecting society form “wicked dissolute men” Thomas Jefferson liked to

talk about it (Carrington, F., 1978).

CONCLUSION

            My research on  issues on the death penalty  is one of the most debatable in the criminal

justice system.  Today, there are many pros and cons to this death penalty issues.  However, if

people weigh the arguments properly,  and have empathy for the victims, they will be more

inclined to favor capital punishment.  As a matter of fact, most people in the U.S. today are in

favor of it.  But we need more states to enforce the death penalty. 

            As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty help to curtail future

murderers, thus, we can save more lives.  The chances of murdering an innocent man  is very

minute. 

My Opinion

            In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty, because we can save innocent

lives.  Life to me is scared as Professor Haag stated.    My innocent nephew, Sean

Burgado,  who was brutally murdered  by a shot gun to the chest, did not have a choice to make

a last statement or  make a will before he died.    The people on death row can watch T.V. and

enjoy their lives for another 20 years before they are executed.  They can prepare their death by

making  a will and a last statement.   Sean’s  murder is still unsolved, and the killer is enjoying

his life somewhere.  The murderer(s)  will probably  murder another person some day. 

            I heard on the news last month, February 2000, where a 62 year-old grandmother,

Betty  Beets, was pleading for her life because she was on death row and was going to be

executed.  At first, I felt very sorry for her, but after doing research on her, I learned she had five

husbands.  She had already killed the fourth one, and served a prison sentence for murder, and

she got out of prison early. She murdered the  fifth husband-she shot him, and buried him in her

back yard.  Betty Beets was imprisoned a second time, and now was pleading for her life?  It has

been proven these killers do it again and again.  The rate of recidivism is high for people who
commit murder and crimes.  I feel murderers should be executed the first time  because

chances are they will come out of prison and kill another innocent person again.  We need

stricter laws and swift death penalty.  

            I belong to a group called Parents of Murdered Children (POMC).  One of the woman

came forward and told me how her husband shot and killed her five year-old daughter which she

witnessed on her birthday.   He attempted to kill the two-year old son, too, but fortunately, the

gun he was using didn’t go off a second time, because it was too old and the son’s life was

sparred.   Her husband’s  intention was to kill the two children, and himself on her (the wife’s)

birthday.  He said, if  I can’t have my children you won’t either.  Everything to her is still

a  nightmare. 

            He (the husband) was sentenced to death, but committed suicide in prison.  She recently

learned that prior to the killing he had contracted someone $5,000 to burn their house while she

and the kids were inside. 

            She said she would have gone to see her husband being executed if he lived because she

didn’t want him out again.  She said, “To me, I think for the most part, I didn’t care what

happened to him.  I just didn’t want him to be out again after what he did.  I  told the District

Attorney that I was afraid that he would get out and try to finish what he started” (Email,

personal communication- March 31, 2000).

            There are too many stories like these where people deserve the death penalty for killing

other people.  If they are released from  prison, they will kill other innocent lives again. 

            I believe life is sacred, therefore, one who takes a life should have his own life taken away,

too.  The Lord said in Exodus “Thou shalt not kill!”.  It is one of the Ten Commandments.

 The laws today are too lenient.  If there is no death penalty in your  state, and a
criminal  kills someone, it is because  he felt  he could  get out in 10 years or less from prison.

There is no fear of death for him.   They see other murderers in the state get away with

murder,  so they, too,  can get away with it.   They don’t have to fear the death penalty.   In fact, I

read where a husband intentionally moved to a non death penalty state, so he could murder his

wife and get away with it.  Many murders are premeditated.   People in the “heat of passion”

should make it a  point to evade the argument or the environment.  Remember it could be one of

your loved ones.  Can you imagine what it would be like to have your loved one

murdered?  There are no words that can explain the loss of your loved one to murder.  Call your

state legislature representatives  today to enforce the death penalty in your state!

 Lori Ornellas                                                                                      

Abstract

            The purpose of this paper is to look at both sides of the arguments of the death penalty-
the pros and cons, and how our criminal justice system makes legislatures, courts, and the U.S.
Supreme Court chose to resolve issues.  Interesting issues are brought up like the fear of the
death penalty, bible quotes, how life is sacred, and the execution of the innocent. You will note
too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer and not on the victim.  The murderers
get out of prison early and murder again.  There are evidence to both sides of the argument in
whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not.  In question of the death penalty, I ask you  to
weigh both sides of the argument carefully and make your decision based on the action that will
serve the best humanitarian purpose of criminal law. 

 Not practicable1
st
point: DEATH PENALTY IS NOT A PROVEN DETERRENT TO FUTUREMURDERSThe
overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penaltyis, at best,
no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life imprisonment. Criminologistssuch as William
Bowers of Northeastern University said that society is brutalized by theuse of death penalty
and this increases the ritual hood of murder. According todeathpenalty.info.msu.edu/, the US
with the death penalty has a higher rate than thecountries of Europe and Canada which do not
use death penalty. Further studies showwhich could be found in a public faith, a social witness
authored by National Council of Churches in the Philippines Amnesty International group 204,
Sweden section, Letter toBishop La Verne Mercado, dated August 22, 1989: Dr. Roger Hood
from OxfordUniversity found that the number of Homicides in several countries including
Canada,Australia and Jamaica have stayed the same or even fallen after the abolition of
death penalty. Sociologically speaking, the Amnesty International arrive to a conclusion
thatfactors like education, unemployment and poverty are more relevant in crime
causationrather than the absence of death penalty.2
nd
Point: THERE IS ALWAYS A POSIBILITY OF ERROR IN CONDEMNING APERSON TO DEATHThe
death penalty alone imposes irrevocable sentence, once an inmate is executed,nothing can be
done to make amends if a mistake have been made. It is impossible to pardon a corpse.
Amnesty International interviewed inmates in the Philippines and theywere surprised to find out
that illegal methods including planting of evidences, and theuse of ill treatments and torture to
secure confessions from criminal suspects. In one case,involving Eusebio Molijan, sentenced to
death for multiple murder during an attemptedrobbery in 1950 and executed by electrocution in
1958, there remains concern, that hemay have been falsely convicted. Eusebio Molijan was
convicted on the strength of awritten confession which he retracted during his trial, saying
he had been punched in thestomach and beaten by a piece of wood by police to force him to
confess. He alsoclaimed he has been forced against his will to participate in the robbery and
that another man had planned and carried out the murders. The Supreme Court acknowledged
thatthere was insufficient evidence to prove that Molijan was the instigator of the crime, buthis
death sentence was confirmed. Not only Eusebio Molijar is the victim of injustice, as well
as:Fernando Galera – 26 years old, fish vendor, innocent but sentenced to death because
hecant afford to pay competent lawyers (4/1994)Richard Ong – 33, innocent who was
sentenced to death in (12/1994) 8/1996. He wastortured and confessed something which he
didn’t do.Hideshi Suzuki – 38, Japanese man sentenced to death in 12/1994 because of
marijuanatrafficking. H claimed that the marijuana were planted on him by a police officer.

 
Those are a few of the many cases which proves that the judicial system in thePhilippines is
sometimes inefficient, unfair, unjust and imperfect which should be given priority and to
strengthen.3
rd
Point: THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS LIFE; GODIS THE GIVER OF
LIFE AND ONLY HE CAN TAKE IT.In the book 
 A Public Faith, a Social Witness
authored by the NCCP, According to theUnited Methodist Church General Conference,
“We cannot accept retribution or socialvengeance as a reason for taking a life . It violates our
deepest belief in God as the creator and the redeemer of human life. In this respect, there can
be no assertion that human lifecan take humanely by the state. Indeed, in the long run, the use
of death penalty by thestate will increase the acceptance of revenge in our society and will give
official sanctionto a climate of violence.The National Council of Churches in the Philippines
argued that execution prevents thatrepentance and rehabilitation of offenders is contrary of
Christian love and violates thesanctity of human life. They have the right to repent for their sins.
If somebody commitsa crime, let the government authorities punish that person but not to the
extent of death penalty. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as they
better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity
tothe dignity of the human person.As a conclusion, we in the negative side believe that death
penalty should not bereimposed. S a student of a Christian University, we should uphold the
teachings of Christ which is love and reconciliation. Page 6 of the FCU student manual 2010, 2
nd
  paragraph states the philosophy of the school.“Filamer Christian University is committed to the
education of the person, thedevelopment of God given talents, enrichment of intellect, the
refinement of character,reverence to God and the appreciation of God’s creation.”How could you
revere God if you are fighting for death penalty should be reimposed?How could you
appreciate his creation if you are taking the life of it?Let us all bear in mind that Jesus himself is
a victim of capital punishment instead of retribution and revenge, he forgave those who
humiliated him and even prayed for the. If God can forgive, why can’t we? As God said, “Love thy
neighbor as yourself.

In the long history of the Philippines, the death penalty was known and accepted fact.
The code of Kalantiao, the oldest recorded body of laws of our early ancestors showed
the strictness under the barangay that existed and based their moral acceptance of
right and wrong. For example, anyone caught stealing would be penalized by suffering
the loss of finger. 

The graver the theft, the more fingers were cut and if the theft was very grave, the hands
was chopped off, therefore it is understandable that even in the Early periods of our
history there are certain punishment for a offense, that even the code of Kalantiao
imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is considered as heinous crime.

Today, the State itself has different punishment opposite to its offence, our legislators
implement and pass a Bill that will sentenced a grave offender of crime, one of it is the
Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act which gathers many controversies on its
implementation, according to this act a criminal who has been proven guilty to a
heinous crime with the proper due process of law will be executed.
“An eye for an eye” does not mean vengeance, for the Almighty God himself said,
vengeance is mine and by this he meant he would met justice in accordance with his
mysterious way through the Ten Commandments from which morals laws were taken.
Precisely no one has the right to deprive another person of his life, degrade him or her
to the status of an animal, or abuse and debase a person to the extent of destroying
forever his or her dignity. But how about the victims? Those who were murdered and
raped, those children who were abduct for ramson and then killed, for those school kids
and teenagers who buys drugs and in the process slowly or make them criminals, rapist
and murderers while the pushers enrich themselves. 

The death penalty itself on the other hand could strike fear in the minds of those
criminals and make them think twice before committing any act of violence. That the
Capital punishment may act as an instrument with which the righteous may be guarded
against the offender. The enforcement of Capital Punishment under proper
circumstances places a high value on human life and upholds dignity of man, than
making him stop to the level of criminals by lashing out at them with similar brutality in
the guise of justice.

In the Philippines where there is no clean and fair justice system, there is no doubt that
if ever the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act is reimposed there are many
Filipino who will lose their right to life and many will be sentenced with death penalty
and die as it is said those who have less in life, have less in law, that the death penalty
will be biased to the poor ones who could be easily accused by the rich one or those
who were set up to be pointed out as the criminal. As long as bail is pegged on wealth
and the enforcement of law is swayed by money, position and possessions, the death
penalty will be a sword of Damocles over the head of the impoverished and the weak.

We have not repented and turned from our evil ways, we continue to miss the mark. And
so we become desperate and hope to eradicate crime by wasting or executing the
sinner, not the sin.

        
Hypotheses 

This study tested well the hypothesis that there are significant, relevant and
argumentative concepts and ideas involving the analysis of death penalty under the
Philippine Government. The study is an analysis of the extent of the abolishment of
death penalty: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government specifically it
sought answer to the following questions:

1.  Do death penalty control and decrease the crime rate in the Philippines?
2.  What are the reasons why death penalty was abolished?
3. What will be the possible psychological effect of death penalty to the criminals
that was in jail?
4.  What is the possible role of the church?

Rationale and Limitation of the Study

The study was limited to the analysis of the abolishment of the Republic Act No. 7659
or the Death Penalty Act: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government.
The study does not include other phrases such as how, where, and what are the
methods nor the process in death penalty.

The Capital Punishment

The expression Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty is ambiguous, referring to a

species of acts, acts of executing someone for conduct judge to be criminal. It often
refers to a certain kind of social institution. The institution of capital punishment is one
pattern of punishment that forms part of our legal system in many, but not all, societies.
It involves certain roles like those of the executioner and the criminal and certain rules
such as the rule that only person condemned to death by courts is to be executed. In
most society, the punishment for murder is execution. In the Philippines we have the
same act, the R.A. no. 7659 or the death penalty act.

Two Theories on Death Penalty

Classical theory (on which our Revised Penal Code is based) regards crime as the
product of human free will, and the purpose of penalty as retribution. Man is held
accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains unimpaired. For penal
purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself, and a direct
proportion is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the
offense. Hence, the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Positivist theory, on the other hand, views human free will as a myth or at least a
debatable matter. According to it, man is subdued to occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which contrains him to do wrong contrary to his free will. For this
reason, man as a moral being is given primacy over deed, and crime is viewed as a
social phenomenon that can't be checked by retributive transactions, but by measures
designed, cure or educate the criminal.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES,

AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof,
states "Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. 

WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of  their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society;

WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in
the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the
nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the
same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability
to maintain peace and order in the country;

WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to
rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling
reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;

Now, therefore,

 Sec. 1.  Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to

foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such
measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare
which are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy in a just and humane society;

 Sec. 2.  Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended
to read as follows:

Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or
adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere,
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed
100,000 pesos."

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at

least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in
paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
  Sec. 6.  Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

 Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to
death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage to superior strength, with the aid of armed men,
or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
2. In consideration of price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel,
derailment of assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with use of any means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

 Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation.

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on

the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation."

 Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to

death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or
bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug.

 Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the
Death Penalty Cases. -  The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must
be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years
of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which
cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en
banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of
the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration.  The
transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter."

 Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. -  The death sentence shall
not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery,
nor upon any person over seventy years of age.  In this last case, the death sentence
shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties
provided in Article 40.

In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be
forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible
exercise of the pardoning power."

ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The classical and contemporary literature on the subject of capital punishment provides
several very plausible arguments designed to prove that the act of executing a person
for conduct judge to be criminal is sometimes right.

Prevention

Capital punishment is sometimes morally justified as a means of preventing the

criminal from committing additional crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown
himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to murder or rape once is
very likely to act in socially harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a
person from going on to murder or rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is
a far less effective means of protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most
prisoners are freed after a time-often having become most dangerous than when they
entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences. In any case,
escape is always possible. And even within the confines of prison, a condemned
criminal may murder or rape a guard, a fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a
condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing additional
acts of crime. Since it is the only right to protect the innocent member of the society
from the most serious crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right.

Retribution

While the arguments from preventions and deterrence look to the future and attempt to
justify capital punishment by an appeal to the future harm it will avoid, the argument
from retribution looks to the past and tries to justify capital punishment as the right
response to the wrong that has been done. Granted that society would be unjustified in
taking a person's life in punishment for any trivial crime, capital punishment is just
retribution for the greatest crimes. If one person has killed another, it is only fir that he
give his own life in return. Kidnapping and rape are also very wrong that the person who
commits these acts deserves the greatest penalty, death. Justice demands that each
individual be treated by others and by society as he deserves. The person who does
good act ought to be rewarded with good, and the person who does evil ought to suffer
evil-each in proportion to the good or evil done. The conception of justice implicit in this
argument has traditionally been illustrated by the figure of  a blindfold woman holding a
set of balance scales. The woman is blindfolded so that she cannot recognize her
friends and enemies and award the former more good and the latter more evil than they
deserve. The balance scale symbolizes the element of retribution, the notion that good
or evil are to be awarded in return to the good or evil he has done. Applied to
punishment, this means that the punishment should fit the crime that the evil inflicted
upon the condemned criminal should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has
done. Since the only penalty bad enough to equal the greatest crime is death, and since
justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution for his past misdeeds, and since
it is right to do what justice requires, capital punishment or death penalty is sometimes
right.

Self-Defense

Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is sometimes an exercise of society's

right to self defense. Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life
of another, there are exceptional cases where this is morally justified, A person has 
right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life or limb. Society, like the
individual, has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is threatened. Now a
murderer attacks not only his individual victim, but the society itself. Since society is
constituted by aggregate of individuals, to kill one or more individual is already to begin
to exterminate the society. Moreover, certain laws, such as the law prohibiting murder,
are necessary if any collections of individuals are to live together in organized society.
Hence, to break those laws that alone make the existence of society possible is to
threaten that society with death. Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is
right for society to exercise its self defense, and in extreme cases capital punishment or
death penalty does not defend the society from the attacks of a criminal that threaten
its very existence.

ARGUMENTS AGAINTS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Any serious moral problem is two-sided. If all or most of the relevant considerations are
on one side of the fence, everyone knows where the right course of action lies and there
is no real moral problem. In the case of every live moral issue, like that of capital
punishment, there is room for sincere and persistent disagreement because plausible
arguments on one side can be met with equally plausible argument on the other side of
the issue. Having surveyed the arguments in support of capital punishment, let us look
at the arguments of those who insist that capital punishment is always wrong, that it is
never right to execute the condemned criminal no matter how evil his crime.

The Moral Law

Capital punishment is always wrong because it is always a violation of moral laws. The
moral law consists of those rules that specify which kinds of acts are morally right and
which kinds are morally wrong. Historically, it has been thought of in various ways. In
the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral law is usually taken to be the set of commands
issued by God, whether limited to the Ten Commandments or including the many
mandates inscribed in the book of the bible. Rationalistic philosopher have tended to
ignore or reject revelation and think of moral laws as self-evident truths about right and
wrong discoverable by the natural light of human reason. However the moral law may
be conceived, it is usually presumed to forbid killing, to prohibit the intentional killing of
human being. Since the moral law declares that killing a human being is always wrong
and since the act of capital punishment is obviously an act of killing a human being,
capital punishment or death penalty is always wrong.

Monstrous Harm

Capital punishment or the death penalty is always wrong because it is always wrong to
do monstrous harm. Although lesser evils may be outweighed by greater goods, there
are some acts that do such great harm that under no circumstances could they be
morally justified. The Nazi extermination of million of Jews inflicted such monstrous
harm upon these innocent people that no real or imagined benefits to humanity could
overweigh its wrongness. On a lesser scale, capital punishment also does almost
indescribable harm. By definition, it deprives its victim of his every life. The loss of a
human life is the greatest of evil because life is the most precious of all human goods.
Not only is life the necessary condition of any other good at all, it is intrinsically good to
the highest degree. That we prize life above all other things is shown by the way we
cling to life and resist death even when everything else seems lost.
In addition to the obvious harm of inflicting death, capital punishment causes cruel and
inhuman suffering. It may be that the moment of death is almost painless, although this
is not always so. Still, the period of awaiting execution is one of the most unrelieved
tortures. With few if any interesting activities to distract the condemned prisoner, there
is little to think about but impending doom. Under these conditions, the fear of death,
the deepest and most terrifying of all the fears natural to the human psyche, results in a
condition anxiety approaching constant anguish.

Unnecessary Evil

Some evils are morally justified because they are necessary. Under duress of
circumstances, it may be necessary to do evil because that is the only possible way to
avoid some greater evil. The butchering of cattle, sheep and swine may be justified by
the fact that this is only way of sustaining the human population. Unfortunate as it is
that any animal need die, it is less bad that the brute animals perish than that human
beings starve to death. This line of argument does not justify hunting wild animals for
mere pleasure, of course, for hunting is an necessary evil. Only necessary evils, only
those that must be done in order to prevent some worse calamity, are morally right.
Now it may be argued that the execution of criminals, like the killing of cattle, is
necessary evil. The suffering and death inflicted by capital punishment, evil as they are,
are justified by the fact that the death penalty is the only effective means of protecting
society from the even greater evils of murder, rape and kidnapping. But this is not so.
Capital punishment is not necessary because there is another equally effective and less
undesirable means of dealing with crime. Life imprisonment is just as effective as
capital punishment in preventing and deterring crime. The condemned criminal cannot
continue his evil actions under close supervision, and the fear of life imprisonment will
deter potential criminal from doing wrong. Moreover, life imprisonment is a lesser evil
than capital punishment. Admittedly, it inflicts loss of freedom, personal humiliation and
extreme boredom upon the criminal. But suffering is required by the very nature and
purpose of punishment, and these evils are less cruel than death and the agony of
awaiting death. Since the death penalty is an unnecessary evil and it is always wrong to
do unnecessary evil, capital punishment is always wrong.

Irremediability

Capital punishment is wrong because it is irremediable; there is no remedy for the act of
execution. Unfortunately, there re occasion when even the sternest advocate of harsh
punishment deeply desire some remedy, for innocent persons are occasionally
condemned to death. Such judicial errors do not take place often, or at least are not
often detected, but when they do occur, we rebel at this gratuitous loss of innocent life
and yearn for some remedy. Not all punishment are beyond remedy. If someone is fined
by the court as a penalty for alleged wrongdoing, his money can be restored to him if it
is subsequently discovered that he is innocent. If a person's innocence is established
after he has spent several years in prison, restitution is not possible. There is no way in
which society can give back to someone wrongly condemned those lost years of his life
or undo the suffering he has lived through. Still, some compensation is possible. Society
can give its innocent victim a considerable sum of money to repay him, in part at least,
for what he has suffered at its hand. It would be naively sentimental to pretend that any
compensation would adequately balance the harm inflicted upon the person unjustly
condemned to imprisonment, but some partial and imperfect remedy is available for any
such miscarriage of justice. In the case of capital punishment, no remedy of any kind is
available to make up in the slightest degree for the incalculable evil done by taking the
life of an innocent human being. Neither restitution nor compensation is possible, for
there is no way in which society can give a person's life back to him and no way to do
good to someone who is dead and gone. Since the possibility of error can never be
eradicated from any human judicial procedure, irremediable penalties are always wrong.
Since capital punishment is an irremediable judicial penalty, it is always wrong.

On the Abolition of the Death Penalty

The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing
the death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of
human person and human rights. Article II, Section11 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states:

"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights".

The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human

Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines
had ratified, guarantees that every human being has the inherent right to life. This right
shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The Congress
of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing the death
sentence with the motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the commission of
heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid statute. Statistics, however, show that
the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized. Despite the
enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, ore heinous
crimes have been committed. From January to October 1999, the reported cases of
rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute, have substantially
increased. Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his second thoughts
on the imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life imprisonment the
death sentence of prisoners in Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083, introduced by
Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by Representative Roan L.
Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act No. 7659. Indeed, the Philippines,
known as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the death penalty law, has
returned to the ancient era of Lex Taliones -" life for a life, tooth for a tooth" – a system
blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice. Pope John Paul II, in his
"Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25 March 1995, said that
modern society now has all the means of effectively suppressing all crimes by
rendering harmless without definitely denying them the chance to reform. Moreover, the
concept of heinous crimes is now limited to grievous offenses like genocide or
international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in danger. The
Commission on Human Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and the
execution of the first death sentence of Leo Echegaray, recommended to the Philippine
Senate to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights aiming the Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the abolition
of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and progressive
development of human rights. Criminality can be fought with sincere and effective law
enforcement and impartial administration of justice. The said Protocol has already been
ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and territories. It is about time that the
Philippines join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate death penalty in local
statutes. The Commission on Human Rights issues this Human Rights Advisory
addressed to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines for their
appropriate action and all the person who value the dignity of the human person and the
preservation and sanctity of life.

THE PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Does the State have the right and authority to impose the capital punishment and put a
criminal to death?  Advocates of human rights oppose capital punishment and say it is
cruel, inhuman, uncivilized and inconsistent with reason. The constitution of the
Philippines has abolished capital punishment but does not prohibit Congress to impose
death penalty for the heinous crime. Today our legislators have yet to define and rule on
what constitutes a heinous crime.

Henry Davis, theologian support the view: God has given to the State the right over life
and death as he has given to everyman the right of self-defense against aggression.
This moral power of the State has been universally acknowledge in Christian tradition. It
is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus 22:18); it
was recognized in the Roman Polity by Paul (Romans 13:4); “for he (the prince) is God's
minister to them for good. But if they do that which is evil; fear; for the beareth not the
sword in vain”

He therefore declared that every person has the right to live without unjust molestation
from the others. Capital punishment is therefore unnecessary for peace and security of
life and property. In his thinking capital punishment is deterrent so that citizen may live
and go about their activities with our molestation. Nonetheless he allows capital
punishment under the following conditions:
 1. The criminal is given due process in the court
2. The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible punishment.
3. The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt

Capital Punishment or Death Penalty is a destructive action which needs a special

justification, a special pleading. Capital punishment should never be compared with
surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the extinction of life.
Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to
justify. Such that capital punishment for it directly destroy the life of a person,
preventing him to make amends and to change his life. Indeed, it is presumed that the
State has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.

Bernard Haring suggest that crimes re the result of socio environmental conditions. He
declares as his personal conviction “that the State has no right to uphold the death
penalty unless it has done all in time power to give better education and to care for a
more just and humane environment” he notes.

Recapituation: there are two probable opinions with Christianity and within the Catholic
Church regarding the death penalty. This author favor to the reimposition of death
penalty for heinous crimes and for as long as the conditions providing for a just and
honest trials of criminals are observed strictly Philippines situation indicates that life
imprisonment is not a very promising alternative.

Newspaper Clip: Views on Reimposition Of Death Penalty

The Republic Act No. 7659 also known as the Death Penalty Act has undergone
different analysis and interpretations thus its implementation says will decrease the
Philippines crime rate, but it remains unquestionable.

Death Penalty for Graft and Corruption

DELICADEZA: A combination of delicadeza and public opinion led to the withdrawal of

Zoe Baird, one of America's ablest women lawyers, as President Clinton's nominee for
attorney general. She was the first woman ever to be nominated for the position.
Reason for withdrawal: She had hired a Peruvian couple who were illegal immigrants. In
the Philippines, delicadeza and public opinion cannot pry everyone who has already
been nominated for a high position out of a job especially if he has already been
installed. We seek refuge behind the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
This theory leaves no room for either public opinion or delicadeza. We are only fouled
weather democrats.

Death Penalty for Drugs

According to reports in the regional press, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization

has urged all ASEAN member states to impose the death penalty for drug trafficking. At
a recent meeting in Kuala, Lumpur, delegates from five member states, including the
Philippines, agreed that trafficking in over 15 grams of heroin or morphine should be
made a capital offense.

 Meriam Santiago said the number of crimes committed daily rose to 34.3

percent in 1990, during which there were 5,193 index crimes reported
representing what she called a significant increase in crime against property, life
and chastity.

“as an immigration commissioner, I was privy to intelligence reports on the activities of

global criminal syndicates, which use the Philippines as the transhipment centers for
drugs in Asia. Only the death penalty will deter the syndicate”.

She pointed out that the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, and from that
time, police reports show that an average of two people is killed daily. 

“In Manila, from the time death penalty was abolished, the criminality rate rose by more
than 100    percent”. she said.

 Bengson a practicing lawyer, said legislator as representatives of the people

should now take heed of their constituents' voice. He noted that even among
churchmen, there is division on weather death penalty is moral.

           
“In the face of such doubt, the people's voice should be the final arbiter”, he said.

He noted the near unanimity of law enforcers, prosecutors, justices, and local officials
on the necessity of reimposing the death penalty.

“Letters to newspaper editors and phoned-in comments on public affairs radio and
television shows popular support for the death penalty”, Bengson added.

He also contested arguments that the state will be just like the criminals if it puts
murderers to death.

“A Government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible criminals to
death will find its citizens at the mercy of criminals who find nothing wrong with putting
innocent people to death”, he said.

He added that outlawing or banning the death penalty will be tantamount to giving the
wrong signals to criminal elements.

“We'll be saying to them: “You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be
assured that your own life is safe because we don't allow the death penalty,” he said.

 Judge Tirso Velasco, presiding judge of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court
Branch 88, said his colleagues acknowledge the need for restoration of the death
penalty.

1. The death penalty should be implemented only according to the gravity of the
crime against the person.
2. The death penalty will prevent more heinous crime.
3. The reimposition of the death penalty will comply with the biblical principle of an
“eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 Judge Maximino Asuncion of RTC Branch 104 said that while he was not sure
that the death penalty will reduce incidence of crime, a majority clamors its
reimposition.

“Everybody should have their own share of the law,” he said 

The 1986 Constitution abolished the death penalty, but allowed Congress to reimpose it
on certain heinous crimes.

 Fourteen of fifteen justices of the Supreme Court, support the reimposition of

the death penalty.
The association of Governors, City and Town Mayors and Councilors also favor the
restoration of capital punishment.

 A 20,000- strong student organization threatened not to vote and campaign

against a Senator who oppose the death penalty if they seek re-election.

 When deposed President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, he ordered a

notorious Chinese Drug pusher executed by musketry under the dangerous drugs
law. The execution sent shock waves down drug pushing, addiction and illegal
importation of drugs for their sale was down to a trickle.

 The penalty for peddling drug is death in at least six Asian
countries. Malaysia showed the way on July 7, 1985. Death to drug dealers is
mandatory in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand andSingapore. The People's
Republic of China has many times reported execution of drug pusher.

 In the United States which is made up of 50 states, only 11 states have abolished
capital punishment namely Kansas, North
Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Winconsin, Michigan, West Virginia,New
York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine.

 Prof. Ed Garcia, principal author of the provision abolishing the death penalty in

the 1987 Constitution, cites an 1989 Amnesty International Study of the use of
the death penalty in the Philippines which presents case of studies of at least
eight instances where judicial mistakes had resulted in the death penalty being
imposed on innocent individuals and one case in 1958 where it was carried out
and blameless farmer's life snuffled out.

 Another useful statistics of study made on the death penalty in the Philippines
from 1946-1976showed that of 63 persons on whom the death penalty was
imposed only three came from so called middle class family background while
the rest were from what are referred to as the disadvantages sector.
  August 12, 1991 Senators who favor the return of the death penalty are confident
they have enough vote to pass the proposal the next day, but their pro-life
colleagues are about to give up the fight.

Summary

This study determined the debates on death penalty referring to moral and judicial
control under the Philippine Government. It further elaborated on the disputes of
opinions and facts regarding the unresolved issue rooming continuously to present
times.

        Though, it specifically answers the following questions:

1. What are the revised penal laws indicated for the said capital punishment issue?
2. What are the biblical oaths in accordance to death penalty offenses?
3. What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?
4. What are the arguments for capital punishment and arguments against capital
punishment?

Conclusions

Significant and relevant yet argumentative views showed further concerns with the
reimposition of capital punishment. Vehement forms of idealistic battles pertaining to
purposive biblical, theoretical, judicial and moral facts give it's way to the complication
and inconsistencies to which laws governing the country are oftenly refined.

Large numbers of politicians were merely in approvement with the reimposition as of

the times heinous crimes were observed frequently during their terms of service and left
death penalty as the only option for the hinderance of such pandemonium in the society
and evaluations by other countries as basis for the inactment.

Abolition of Republic Act No. 7659 was much praised because it was proven that capital
punishment is not always succeeding in preventing heinous crimes and will only deprive
the country's capability and irredibility towards authenticity and fairness in judgement.
Fundamental right of every human being to life and dignity of human person and
preservation and sanctity of life were highly and truly valued.
MANILA, Philippines – Death penalty is not the solution against criminality, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said
Tuesday following calls to reinstate the death sentence after the gruesome killing of a 20 year old cum laude from the
University of Sto. Tomas.
“As a human rights advocate, I’ve always been against the reimposition of the death penalty. My current role as
Secretary of Justice does not at all change my position on the issue,” De Lima said at a text message to reporters.
“Death penalty is not the solution to criminality. What deters criminality is faithful and diligent enforcement of laws
and due administration of the criminal justice system without fear or favour,” she said.
The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption said the death penalty should be restored after Cyrish Magalang, a
tourism student from UST was stabbed to death by two sspects, brothers, who have been arrested.
Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law was repealed by Republic Act 9346 or the Law Prohibiting the Imposition
of Death Penalty in the Philippines. Under the law, those convicted of heinous crimes shall be meted with the penalty
of reclusion perpetua or imprisonment of up to 40 years and will not be eligible for parole.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/302724/death-penalty-not-solution-against-criminality-de-
lima#ixzz3DUW9Y3Hu 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Debate on death penalty to be revived in Senate 

By Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:04:00 01/20/2011

Filed Under: Punishment, Crime, Laws, Juan Miguel Zubiri,Kiko Pangilinan, Alan Peter Cayetano

MANILA, Philippines?Proposals to resurrect the death penalty law have resurfaced in the Senate following the spate
of crimes that rocked Metro Manila in the new year.

Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri has filed Senate Bill No. 2383 seeking the re-imposition of the capital punishment on
murderers and drug traffickers.

But some of his colleagues promptly shot down the idea, saying the death penalty would not be the solution.

Senator Francis Pangilinan suggested that a ?crime czar? be appointed, ?someone who is resolute and results-driven.?

In SB No. 2383, Zubiri argued the removal of the death penalty law in 2006 was ?greeted with jubilation by criminal
syndicates and hardened criminals.?

?Recent events would prove the fear of the silent majority of our society to be true, that is, the repeal of the death
penalty sets us back on our peace and order efforts,? he said in the bill?s explanatory note.

Zubiri said the absence of death penalty also ?emboldens criminals to wantonly disregard the rule of law and the
dignity of human life.?

Authorities are still investigating the gruesome murder of two car dealers and an employee in separate incidents last
week.

The bodies of Emerson Lozano, his driver Ernane Sensil, and fellow car dealer Venson Evangelista were charred and
bore gunshot wounds. The 30-year-old Evangelista?s remains were also mutilated.

Pangilinan said the incidents ?give a foreboding sense of lawlessness.? But he still did not support calls to revive the
death penalty law.

?It is the certainty, not the severity, of punishment that brings fear in the hearts of would-be criminals,? he said.
?No matter how severe the penalty imposed, if convictions are few and far between, or cases drag on for years on
end without punishment, then criminality will remain rampant.?

Pangilinan added: ?It is the swiftness of punishment regardless of the penalty involved that will ensure respect for
our laws and instill fear in the hearts of would-be criminals in our criminal justice system.?

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano agreed that the death penalty would not necessarily deter crimes.

?Even if you impose the death penalty on criminals but you cannot get them, the law would not be a deterrent,? he
said in Filipino.

?So what deters crime? It?s the certainty that [criminals] would be arrested.?

10 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty

Innocence and the Death Penalty

The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can
never be rectified. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 144
men and women have been released from death row nationally.

The High Cost of the Death Penalty

It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison
for life.

Death Penalty Can Prolong Suffering for Victims' Families

Many family members who have lost love ones to murder feel that the
death penalty will not heal their wounds nor will it end their pain; the
extended legal process prior to executions can prolong the agony
experienced by the victims' families.

International Views on the Death Penalty

The vast majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and
South America - more than 139 nations worldwide - have abandoned
capital punishment in law or in practice.

Inadequate Legal Representation

Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a defendant
will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or
she is provided.

Deterrence
Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that
executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long
prison sentences.
 Arbitrariness in the Application of the Death Penalty 
Politics, quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is
committed are more often the determining factors in a death penalty
case than the facts of the crime itself.

Religious Perspectives on the Death Penalty

Although isolated passages of religious scripture have been quoted in
support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United
States regard executions as immoral.

Racial Disparities
The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are
major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In
1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82
percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to
influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or
receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more
likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

Alternatives to the Death Penalty

In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of
sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps
violent offenders off the streets for good.

Capital Punishment:
Three Good Reasons for Supporting the Death Penalty
In the year 1993 alone, over 18,000 people were arrested for murder in the United
States. Yet, in the past twenty years, there have been less than 300 executions.
Today there are over 2,500 murderers on "death row", but less than fifty of them will
be executed this year. That's 15,000 to 20,000 murders per year with less than fifty
executions!

Although eighty percent of Americans still favor the death penalty, many are
beginning to have second thoughts as the liberal establishment marches ahead
with it's never-ending crusade against morality, freedom and justice.

For the few Americans who still believe that God's opinion is more valuable than
anything any news network or politician has ever said, we'd like to present the
straight honest Biblical facts about murder and capital punishment.

As you read the forthcoming words, please remain mindful of the fact that the
words in bold type are not the words or interpretations of men, but they are rather
the inspired words of Almighty God. You are expected (by God) to believe them.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20)

The Death Penalty Honors God

The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God
made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon
it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and
God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all.

God does have rights, and it is His right to do as He pleases with His own creation.
Man is the highest form of life on this earth, created in God's own image, and
crowned with glory and honor (Psa. 8:5). God has given man the MORAL DUTY to
execute those who choose to take the lives of others. Exodus 21:12 says, "He that
smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Do you wish to honor
God? Then you must support the death penalty, because God commands it.

Someone says, "Well, that's just the Old Testament law. The New Testament
doesn't support the death penalty." I beg your pardon! Have you read Acts 25:11?
Have you read Roman 13:1-4? What about Revelation 13:10? Friend, God has never
changed His law of Capital Punishment for murderers!

Revelation 13:10 says, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that
killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the
faith of the saints." If the death penalty is no longer in effect, then why is this verse
even in the New Testament?
In Acts 25:11 the apostle Paul says, "For if I be an offender, or have committed any
thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things
whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto
Caesar. Paul admitted that some things were "worthy of death," and that he was
willing to "die" if he was guilty of such an offense. If the death penalty is not for
today, then why didn't Paul tell us?

In the very next book, Paul reaffirms this truth. Notice very carefully Romans 13:1-
4: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of
God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Did you see that? Those in authority are ordained by God (just as in Genesis 9:6)
to "execute" wrath upon evil doers. Paul said, "...he beareth not the sword in
vain..."A sword is used for one thing: KILLING! Killers are to be killed, and God's
will has not been fulfilled until our governing bodies have executed wrath upon
those who have killed others.

Let's take it a step further. Did you know that God has actually promised to BLESS
us if we follow His plan of using the death penalty? Notice Deuteronomy 19:11-13

"But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him,
and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the
elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of
the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt
put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee."

Did you see that? He said, "...that it may go well with thee..." God WANTS things to
go well with us! God WANTS to bless our nation, but He can't do it with killers
running loose or with them sitting in prison receiving free meals, free housing, free
clothing, a free education, and free legal counselling! That's insane! That's wicked!
I cannot honestly ask God to bless America while we allow such wickedness to
prevail. He will not do it! He cannot go against His own words. We must honor
God and obey His word before we can expect His blessings.

The Death Penalty Is A Deterrent to

Crime
A common argument is that statistics do not show that the death penalty deters
crime when we compare death penalty states with non-death penalty states. Of
course it doesn't! The states that HAVE the death penalty do not use it enough to
show anything! Less than fifty executions out of 18,000 murders isn't going to
accomplish much! I bet 18,000 executions would deter some crime! I bet the
murder rate would fall quicker than the 1929 stock market!

I personally think we need TELEVISED executions every night at 8:00 p.m. on

national television. Forget the movie of the week. Let's just have about 50,000,000
Americans sit down every night and see some little children crying about their
mother who was raped and murdered. Let's see some moms and dads mourning
over their little girl who was molested and murdered by some wicked devil, and
then let's see the rascal get what he deserves. I bet that would deter some crime!
You say, "Man, you're crazy!" Am I? Did you ever read how God commanded the
Israelites to execute people? It was a PUBLIC STONING? Is God crazy too?

The Death Penalty Is Good for the

Environment
It seems that everywhere you turn these days some special interest group is
whining about the environment. An actor out in Hollywood, back in the eighties,
said we'd all be gone in ten years because we're destroying our environment.
Everyone seems just terrified with all this talk about global warming, the ozone,
the endangered species, the rain forests and the wet lands, but they're all in an
uproar about NOTHING--absolutely nothing. If you know your Bible, then you know
this old planet will survive for AT LEAST another 1007 years! So, let's all relax and
concentrate on something that will REALLY help the environment. Let's get
serious about Capital Punishment!

How does the death penalty help the environment? God's word can answer that

"And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer:

the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a
stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall
surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood,
wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be
put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he
meeteth him, he shall slay him. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by
laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that
smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood
shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him." (Num. 35:16-21)

"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of
witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to
die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is
guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." (Num. 35:30-31)

Now, here comes the environmental part:

"So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and
the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of
him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I
dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel." ( vs. 33-34)

Did you see that? God said that the land is POLLUTED and DEFILED when killers
go free. In God's word, environmental pollution is associated with SIN, not carbon
monoxide and lead poisoning. The best way to clean up America is JUSTICE.
Justice will teach people to respect the law once again and to fear God. If that
happens, maybe more people will repent of their sins and receive Jesus Christ as
their Saviour. Nothing could help our environment more.

Friend, you just read what God's word has to say about the death penalty. If you
don't support it, then right now is the time for you to start. You should get on your
knees and ask God to forgive you for ignoring His word and being ignorant of His
will concerning the death penalty. Then contact us and order about fifty of these
tracts to give to your friends and family members.

If you've never received the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour, then why not do so
right now? Jesus said that salvation is a new birth, a spiritual birth from God
(John 3:3). The salvation of your soul is entirely a spiritual matter. No amount of
outward physical acts, such as church attendance, receiving sacraments,
confession, or being baptized can save you. You MUST be born again. You must
come to know the Lord Jesus Christ personallyin your own heart. Friend, you need
more than a religion: you need a relationship.

John 1:12 tells us how this personal relationship with Jesus Christ is
established: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" Friend, you must RECEIVE
Jesus Christ! He's the one who bled and died for your sins! He's the one who was
buried, and then arose again after three days for your justification! Jesus Christ is
the one who is currently seated at the right hand of God, waiting for you to repent
of your sins (Luk. 13:3) and trust Him alone to save you. Acts 4:12 tells
us, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." No church, no preacher,
no priest, and no creed can save you. You can only be saved by the Lord Jesus
Christ. Will you trust Him today

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)
The Death
Penalty:
Right Or
Wrong,
Good Or
Bad?
By Dr. Don
Boys
© 1997
Cornerstone
Communications

Can we agree
that if the death
penalty is right
then it is also
good and if it is
wrong, it is also
bad? Of course,
our first
concern should
be, what does
the Bible teach
about the state
putting people
to death? If we
can ascertain
that then it
doesn't matter
what
philosophers,
theologians,
sociologists,
criminologists
and weeping,
whining and
whimpering
liberals have to
say about the
subject.

Genesis 9:6
clearly teaches
that if a man
sheds another
person's blood,
then his life will
be taken by the
government.
Moses wrote,
"whoso
sheddeth
man's blood, by
man shall his
blood be shed:
for in the image
of God made
he man." When
a person
premeditatedly
takes a life, he
not only
assaults
society but
attacks God
since man was
made in His
image. For
those who
accept the
Bible as binding
on what we
believe and
practice, that
should settle
the issue.

However,
sincere people
tell us that God
also
commanded
us, "Thou shalt
not kill" so
killing is wrong,
but even astute
Sunday school
pupils know
that that verse
means, "Thou
shalt do no
murder." And of
course, we
should not
murder. If we
could not kill,
then we would
be prohibited
from killing a
fly, beef, hog,
etc. Nor could
we kill in times
of war or self
defense, but
that is not the
issue. The
issue is
murder.

We are
experiencing
about 20,000
killings each
year in the US,
but back before
the states
stopped putting
killers to death,
we "only" had
10,000 per
year. So when
the death
penalty was
stopped, in
1965, an
additional
10,000 people
were killed
each year! We
had been
executing
about 50 killers
per year, but we
stopped
obeying God
and stopped
executing
killers, and the
result was
10,000
additional
innocent
people being
killed each
year. We only
execute one
killer for every
10,000 victims.
That's why I say
we are playing
with the death
penalty even
though three-
fourths of
Americans
want killers
executed. It's
not vengeance
but justice.

Some states
are back to
executing
killers, but we
are only playing
with the death
penalty.
Execution is
still not sure
and very slow
coming to the
killers. A killer
should know
that after a fair,
fast trial and
one appeal, he
goes to the
chair! He
should be in the
grave before
the first
anniversary of
his victim's
death. Will the
number of
killings go
down if each
state really
gets serious
about
executing the
killers? I'm not
sure, but that's
not the issue.
Killers deserve
to die. The
blood of
innocent ones
cries out for
justice, and one
thing is sure:
the executed
killer will never
kill again.
Often, the
bleeding hearts
tell us that a
man must be
insane to take a
life so they put
him in a mental
hospital, but
studies show
that they are
back on the
streets in a few
years. My
position is, if
they are truly
insane, lock'em
and leave'em. If
sane, try'em
and fry'em.

But why not be

humane and
give him life in
prison without
possibility of
parole? That
still doesn't
satisfy the
scriptural
demand that
killers be killed
nor does it
speak to
justice. It also
puts prison
guards in
jeopardy. Since
killers have
nothing to lose,
why not kill a
guard during an
escape
attempt? Why
not kill another
prisoner during
a fight? After
all, the killers
have nothing to
lose. A life
sentence can't
be any longer.
And why
shouldn't
thieves or
kidnappers kill
witnesses
since they
would not have
a possible
death sentence
hanging over
their heads?

To hear many
death penalty
opponents talk,
you would think
that our only
argument is the
deterrent effect
of the death
penalty, but
that is only an
insignificant
argument. They
often point out
that states
without the
death penalty
have about the
same number
of killings as
those that do
execute killers.
Of course, no
one says that
all killers are
deterred. We
know that no
law deters
everyone. We
do not know
how many
thousands of
men thought of
taking a life
then
considered the
death penalty
and changed
their minds.

However, we do
know that
many criminals
have not taken
guns to their
crime scene
because they
might be forced
to kill someone
and "get the
chair." That is
deterrence.

While
preaching near
Toronto,
Canada I talked
with a man who
was the
youngest police
chief in Ireland.
He said, "Dr.
Boys, you might
be interested to
know that we
asked nineteen
convicted
killers if they
would have
killed if Ireland
had the death
penalty." He
said, "All
nineteen killers
replied that
they would not
have killed if
Ireland had a
death penalty."
Well, that's
from the
experts – the
killers
themselves.

During
television talk
shows I have
been told many
times that
more poor
people are
executed than
rich people so
in fairness
society should
not execute
people. I tell
them more
poor people are
executed for
murder
because they
do more
murders! After
all, there are
more poor
people out
there than rich
people. It is
also a fact, that
really does not
need to be
expressed, that
rich people
don't usually
have the
motives to kill.
They have
money, friends,
homes, cars so
they usually
only kill during
very emotional
times.

Of course,
when a rich
person kills
another, he or
she should get
the death
penalty as poor
people do. Yes,
rich people can
afford better
lawyers than
poor people,
but that is a
fact of life that
must be
accepted.

We are also
told that more
blacks get
executed than
whites;
however the
U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that
the death
penalty does
not
discriminate
against blacks.
Furthermore, a
Stanford
University
study revealed
that killers of
whites
(whether the
killers are black
or white) are
more likely to
get sentenced
to death than
killers of black
people
(whether the
killers are black
or white). But
blacks who kill
whites were
less likely to
receive death
sentences than
were whites
who killed
whites. Doesn't
sound like
discrimination
to me unless
maybe it is
reverse
discrimination!

It is also
interesting that
women commit
about 13% of
the murders in
the US yet less
than 1% are
executed.
Maybe we can
expect the
screaming
ladies at NOW
to do
something
about this
glaring
inequality and
injustice.
Unless you look
good in blue,
don't hold your
breath until the
feminists carry
signs
demanding,
"Execute more
women," "More
Women to the
Chair," or "Put
more women
on death row."

We had better
demand that all
people be
treated like
people
whatever their
color, gender or
social status.
The answer is
to mete out
punishment
equally, not
drop it
altogether. A
study by the
National Center
for Policy
Analysis found
that a killer
could expect
only 1.8 years
for murder in
1990. That's
not justice.

"But if we
execute all the
killers on death
row in the
various states,
that would be a
blood bath,"
says the
innocent one.
What do you
think we have
today? If there
is going to be a
blood bath, let
it be the blood
of convicted
killers. If all 50
states were to
executed all
3000 killers
tomorrow
morning at
6:00, it would
sure send a
message to
other potential
killers, wouldn't
it?

Authorities
should also get
the message
that felons
should be in
prison, not on
the streets.
Streets are for
people who
obey and
respect the law.
Rebels belong
in prison. But at
least 30% of
those arrested
for violent
crimes were on
probation,
parole or on
bail. We must
send officials a
message: Keep
violent
criminals in
prison!

The US Justice
Department's
annual report
revealed that
two-thirds of
those on death
row had prior
felony
convictions and
a full 10% of
those killers
had killed
before! That
10% should not
have been
permitted to
prey on
innocent
people because
they should
have been in
prison. You've
heard of three
strikes and
you're out, but
it should be
one strike and
you're dead. No
second chance
for killers.

Scores of
people have
told me on talk
shows that an
innocent
person may be
executed so we
should do away
with the death
penalty. Well,
since we live in
an imperfect
world, I'll
concede the
possibility that
an innocent
person may be
executed. But
without the
death penalty,
there will be the
certainty of
many more
innocent
killings.

I have also
heard the old
canard that it is
better to let a
hundred guilty
men go free
than to
executed one
innocent man.
Now, I'm not
advocating
executing
innocent
people, and the
thought is
horrifying, but it
is a silly
statement. We
are comparing
one innocent
man to the
hundreds of
other innocent
people who will
be killed if the
hundred killers
go free.
Liberals are
non-thinkers.

Often the
opponents of
the death
penalty affirm
that many
innocent
people have
been executed,
so it should be
done away
with, but as
usual, they are
wrong. They
usually quote
the Stanford
Law Review to
prove their
contention, but
they didn't read
the complete
article.
Professors
Bedan and
Radelet looked
at 2300 capital
crime
convictions
since 1900 and
said they
thought 25 men
were wrongly
executed. The
professors
"believed" the
men were
innocent, but
they did not
prove their
case. They
even listed
such notorious
cases such as
Sacco and
Vanzetti,
Hauptmann,
the
Rosenbergs,
etc., all cold-
blooded killers
and traitors
whose cases
were reviewed
by various
courts. The
professors
ended up
saying, "...in
none of the
cases...can we
point to any
state action
indicating the
belief that the
person
executed was
innocent."
Evidently my
opponents
never read the
full article.

Yes, it could
happen. It may
have already
happened, but
it is unlikely
with all the
restrictions
placed on the
police, the
emphasis on
the rights of the
accused, the
jury trial,
numerous
appeals, and
usually a long
period on death
row. Add to
that the fact
that most
governors hand
out pardons
like campaign
literature and
are gutless "cry
babies" who
are super-
sensitive to the
bellowing and
whining from
leftist groups
who have never
seen a guilty
killer they didn't
like.

We are told that

it is state-
sanctioned
murder to carry
out the death
penalty, but if
that is true is it
state-
sanctioned
kidnapping to
keep a person
in prison? Are
fines state
thievery? It is
incredible that
opponents of
the death
penalty tell us
that it
perpetuates
violence. They
can't see the
vast difference
in a person who
takes another
person's life
and the state
doing so after a
fair trial.
Government is
supposed to
protect the
innocent and
punish the
guilty. Those
are the two
functions of
government,
yet our states
are failing at
both.

It is almost
always true
that those
people who
oppose the
death penalty
for convicted
killers (and I
think that
kidnappers,
rapists and
traitors should
get death as
they did 50
years ago)
almost always
are loud
proponents of
abortion! Let's
see now: they
don't want
vicious killers
to be killed, but
they do want
innocent,
unborn babies
to be
butchered! I
don't think I
understand that
kind of
thinking.

I have asked
my opponents
if I have a right
to defend
myself if a
person is trying
to kill me, and
most of them
agreed that it
was
acceptable. I
then ask them,
"If it is morally
and legally right
for me to
defend myself
– even killing
my attacker –
before I am
killed, why is it
wrong for the
state to kill him
after he has
killed me?"
They are
strangely quiet.

Often, in
desperation,
my death
penalty
opponents
remind me that
most civilized
nations have
banned the
death penalty
as cruel and
inhumane. I
usually pause
for a few
seconds and
say, "So?" When
European
nations were
ruled by tyrants
like Hitler,
Stalin,
Mussolini, etc.,
we didn't
emulate them
by looking for a
home grown
dictator, so why
follow them in
their folly now
by abolishing a
reasonable and
scriptural tool
for the sake of
society?
European
nations are
also collecting
the fire arms
and opening
their borders to
almost anyone.
Should we
follow them in
that direction? I
think not.

We are told that

we should
forgive the
killer, but I
reminded them
that no killer
has asked for
my
forgiveness.
Besides he
didn't take the
life of one of
my relatives so
I don't have the
right to forgive
him. During a
talk show I
debated
forgiveness
and mercy as it
related to the
Susan Smith
case – the
mother who
drowned her
two little boys. I
had just
demanded a
death sentence
for her, but the
judge I was
debating asked,
"But what
about mercy,
Dr. Boys?" I
replied, "Mercy
you get from
God; from the
courts you
expect justice."

He said, "But
the clergymen
in her small
town have all
asked for
mercy in her
behalf." I said,
"Her two
children would
liked to have
seen some
mercy from her,
but instead
they were
pushed into a
lake to drown.
Besides,
preachers
asking for
mercy is not an
argument since
most preachers
pull on panty
hose each
morning and
wear lace on
their shorts."
The host said,
"What did you
say?" I then
repeated it, and
he said, "I
thought that's
what you said.

We members
of society must
demand of our
legislators that
crime not pay.
That message
must resonate
to every city
and country
town that
killers will not
be pampered
and made
heroes in the
media. Killers
will be
executed and
after all, that
can facilitate
the best kind of
rehabilitation. If
a man knows
he is going to
die in 30 days,
while the ACLU,
PAW, NAACP
and other
radical groups
whine, weep
and carry
candles for
him, then
maybe he will
experience the
ultimate in
rehabilitation
and turn to
Christ for
genuine
salvation.

State officials
had better get
the message
that we must
feel safe in our
homes, cars,
and the streets,
because if we
perceive that
authorities can
not or will not
impose upon
offenders what
they deserve,
then seeds are
sown for
anarchy,
vigilante justice
and lynch law.
When that
happens, we
are all losers.