This argument analysis examines the article “The Reposition of the Death Penalty Law in

the Philippines”, written by Crystal Faith T. Canillo, Leah Angela G. Cloco, and Heather Marie F.

Jara. This article is about the position of the authors about the repositioning of the death penalty law

in the Philippines. This article also contains arguments and counterarguments that are supported

by evidence. It also contains how the death penalty is not suitable in the country. Specifically, this

analysis identifies the position of the authors, their main arguments, and the evidence supporting

these arguments. The authors make 3 arguments and support them with various pieces of evidence.

The first main argument is a family can lose its breadwinner because of wrong judgment

and interpretation. To support this argument, the authors use 2 evidence. The first evidence is the

government will not spend money on hiring expert analysts and investigators and the justice system

is unfair because of corruption. Second, our country cannot produce excellent

pathologists and excellent forensic analysts. The author assumes that our country doesn’t have

expert investigators and analyst and also have a bad justice system that’s why the author says the death

penalty does not apply to our country.

In conclusion, the author wants to inform the people that we are not ready yet to enforce

the death penalty. I agree that the justice system in our country is bad and we also don’t have good

and expert investigators and analysts. Knowing that we have these problems, the death penalty should

not be implemented in the current state of our country as those people with power will abuse it

making the poor suffer even more.