On Balancing Justice and Human Rights

An Argumentative Essay by Clarisse Danielle M. Romualdo

Death penalty can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where it was often
utilized as a means of retribution, deterrence, or as a form of public spectacle. In
early societies, monarchies and ruling authorities held significant power over life
and death, and capital punishment was a common method of maintaining order and
asserting control. Throughout history, the methods of execution have varied widely,
ranging from crucifixion and beheading to hanging, stoning, and burning at the
stake. The severity of the punishment often depended on the nature of the crime
committed and the societal norms of the time. As compared to the modern era, many
countries have already abolished the death penalty, considering it a violation of
human rights and an irreversible form of punishment that may lead to the execution
of innocent individuals. Philippines, in particular, is one of those. In fact, the country
had enacted its own law in 2006 that prohibits the imposition of death penalty
among individuals that allegedly committed a crime. However, with the increasing
crime rate in the Philippines, debates about whether or not the country should pitch
back death penalty are starting to resurface. Proponents argue that reinstating
capital punishment would serve as a deterrent and a catalyst for change. This essay,
however, insists that death penalty in the Philippines should not be made possible as
it favors those in power, and robs people of their chance to life.

Bearing in mind the judicial system that the country is currently under,
bringing back the death penalty appears susceptible to manipulation by those in
positions of power. The intertwining factors of greed and corruption often erode the
pillars of justice when faced with the sway of wealth and political influence. Take for
example the case of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had been
cleared of charges related to the alleged misuse of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO) funds during her presidency. Undoubtedly, her considerable
influence and financial resource played a crucial role in her emancipation. Further
evidence involves the Ampatuan massacre. The Ampatuan family is a powerful
political clan in Maguindanao, who stood as suspects behind the massacre of 58
people in 2009. Similar to Arroyo, their wealth and political influence had
contributed to the numerous delays and prolonged legal process of their case. All of
these instances point to one disconcerting reality: as long as one possesses a
staggering amount of wealth and a dominating influence, he could always bend the
truth to his advantage and direct the dirty end to the less fortunate. Hence, death
penalty can never be fair where Philippines and power are concerned.

Furthermore, the death penalty not only raises questions about fairness but
also directly infringes on the fundamental right to life. This form of punishment
completely extinguishes the opportunity for individuals to turn their lives around
after committing a significant crime. While it's crucial to hold individuals
accountable for their actions, the irreversible nature of the death penalty shuts the
door on any possibility of remorse, rehabilitation, or positive contributions to society
from those facing execution. In contrast, other punishments like life imprisonment
without parole provide an opportunity for reflection, remorse, and the potential for
personal growth. There are instances where individuals, even those convicted of
serious crimes, have undergone significant transformations while in prison, showing
that rehabilitation is possible. When we opt for the death penalty, we deny
individuals the chance to make amends and contribute positively to society.

In summary, the history and current debates about the death penalty in the
Philippines show a mix of cultural, legal, and ethical factors. Despite progress in
abolishing capital punishment, renewed talks about bringing it back highlight the
ongoing challenges in finding a fair and effective way to address crime. Issues like
power, influence, and the potential for unfairness in the legal system make the
fairness of the death penalty questionable. Additionally, the irreversible nature of
this punishment raises ethical concerns, as it prevents individuals from
rehabilitating and making positive contributions to society. Moving ahead, the
nation must carefully consider the implications of reinstating the death penalty,
balancing the demands of justice with the need to protect human rights and create a
system that allows for personal growth and redemption.