I.

Rebuttal

1. Death penalty is internationally accepted.

It is worthy to note that there is already a worldwide trend against
death penalty because people realized that when they subject a person to
execute and condemn violence of the criminal act committed by the
person and the same act done by the state it is like violence against
violence; there is no improvement at all.

The Philippines is currently an example of global best practice on

the abolition of the death penalty. It abolished the death penalty in 2006
and is the only ASEAN Member State that has ratified the 2nd Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR).

Under Article 1 of the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, the

Philippines is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.

The 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR contains no provision on

renunciation, and States may not unilaterally withdraw from their
obligations under the Protocol. The resumption of executions in the
Philippines would therefore constitute a violation of international law and
represent an alarming disregard for the international human rights system.

As of today, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty in law

or practice; in the Asia Pacific region, 19 countries have abolished the
death penalty for all crimes and a further eight are abolitionist in practice.
The new Criminal Code of Mongolia abolishing the death penalty for all
crimes will become effective in July 2017.

2. The flawed rehabilitation programs of the country makes it empirically

practical to impose death penalty.
 One of the most common misperceptions about death penalty is the
notion that the death penalty saves money because executed defendants
no longer have to be cared for at the states expense. If the costs of the
death penalty were to be measured at the time of execution, that might
indeed be true. But as every prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge
knows, the cost of the capital punishment begin long before the sentence
is carried out. Experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys must be
assigned and begin a long period of investigation and pre-trial hearings.
The trial itself and initial appeals will consume years of time and
enormous amounts of money before an execution is on horizon.

All of the studies conclude that the death penalty system is far more
expensive than an alternative system in which the maximum sentence is life
in prison.

FOR ARGUMENT NUMBER 5.

The death penalty is not cost-effective. When all the practical and legal costs are
taken into account, it is clear that the execution is more expensive than imprisoning for
life.
It costs the government too much money. Critics of death penalty contend the
view of supporters that feeding the inmates is more expensive than death penalty. On
the contrary, the drugs used in lethal injection and other expenses related to the
execution are more costly.