he Death Penalty: An Opinion Essay

COMMUNITY May 30, 2006 Special to The Hamilton Spectator

(May 30, 2006)

The death penalty is a sentence that should be abolished. Should we do to the criminal as they
did to the victim? Is there a chance that the accused is innocent? What can be done since the
sentence is irreversible? These are some of the issues with the death penalty.

My first issue is that the justice system is never 100% correct. “Judges and juries can convict
the innocent, as we know from the case of Donald Marshall, jailed for more than a decade for a
murder he did not commit.”(143). Most crimes end up with criminals serving jail time.
Sometimes people turn up innocent. Because they were only sent to jail and not sentenced to
death their sentence can be reversed. A death penalty is irreversible. The jury is also a factor in
determining penalty.

Several times the same crimes are committed and different sentences are given out. A black
man may receive the death penalty while a white man can get imprisonment. “In Canada, before
the death penalty was abolished, native Indians, Ukrainians, and French Canadians were more
likely to be executed than others.”(141) A jury who consists of those who believe in the death
penalty is more likely to vote guilty while one opposed may vote innocent. They do not want to
be held responsible for the death of someone, innocent or guilty.

The death penalty is unjust and morally wrong. When someone murders someone else, the
correct punishment is not to murder him or her, but to try and help them. We don’t steal from the
thieves, or rape the rapists. “It would be degrading to the penal authorities. It would appear to
condone the crime by repeating it. It would be a wanton cruelty.” (140) Why do we murder the
murderers? The death penalty takes focus away from the victims and focuses the attention on
the criminal.

These are just some of the reasons the death penalty should be removed. There are of course
many more. With the chance of being innocent, unjust, corrupt, what of the death penalty can be
justified? I am strongly against the death penalty and what it stands for.

*All quotations are taken from “Debating the Death Penalty” by D. Matas and A. Allentuck,
contained in “Between the Lines 11”.

Fact Sheet: Note on the death penalty and the Philippines

Posted in Features and Articles

Photo from Japan Daily Press

1. 1. National context

 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the use of the death penalty by stating ‘the death
penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua’.[1]

 In December 1993,President Ramos’ administration re-imposed the death penalty under Republic Act
(RA) 7659 adopted by Congress. The law listed a total of 46 crimes punishable by death. Over the years,
a number of new RAs and amendments to existing ones (8177, 8353 and 9165) further defined those acts
punishable by death resulting in 52 capital offenses, 30 of which were death-mandatory and 22 death-
eligible.

 In 1999, President Estrada had seven death-row convicts executed through lethal injection (RA
8177)which was reportedly intended to abate rising criminality. Following strong lobbying by the
Catholic Church and human rights groups, President Estrada issued a temporary moratorium in March
2000 to mark the Christian ‘Jubilee Year’.

 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the lifting of the de-facto moratorium on executions in
December 2003 in response to a reported rise in drug trafficking and kidnapping. Executions were
expected to resume in January 2004 when the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the lower court to
put to death two death-row inmates following testimonial evidence that exonerated them of their
crimes.[2]

 In April 2006, President Arroyo commuted the sentences of 1,230 death row and ultimately signed RA
9346 in June 2006 which abolished the use of capital punishment[3]. Congress had overwhelmingly
supported the abolishment of the practice in their vote for the RA earlier that month replacing the death
penalty with life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.

 RA 9346 states, inter alia, ‘The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly,
Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the
Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed, Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws,
executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.

1. 2. International context

 The Philippines is party to 8 of the 9 core international human rights treaties. The right to life is at the
center ofthese international treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 The Philippines has led the way in Asia in prohibiting the use of the death penalty. The 1987 Philippines’
Constitution was the first in Asia to prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating that: ‘the death penalty
shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it.

 The Philippines was one of 104 UN Member States to vote at the 2007 UN General Assembly in favor of
a worldwide moratorium on executions in the aim of abolishing the death penalty, and voted in favor of
every subsequent death penalty resolution in 2008, 2010 and 2012.[4]

 The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at the
abolition of the death penalty:

 In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second Optional
Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death penalty within
their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation. Reintroduction of the death
penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservationallowing execution "in time of war pursuant to a
conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime"[5] was made at the
time of ratification which is not the case for the Philippines.

 There is no withdrawal or denunciation mechanism for State’s that are party to the Second Optional
Protocol. The absence in the Protocol of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that once a State has
ratified the Second Optional Protocol the death penalty can never be reintroduced without violating
international law.

1. 3. General information on the death penalty

 Killing people through the use of the death penalty is an irreversible act which has wrongfully killed
many innocent people across the world. It prohibits the correction of mistakes by the justice system and
leaves no room for human error, with the gravest of consequences.Democratic and just societies are, by
definition, required to provide due process to people before the law.

 The death penalty often violates the right to equality and non-discrimination. Statistics worldwide have
repeatedly demonstrated that the use of the death penalty consistently and disproportionately
discriminates against the poor and most marginalized individuals and subsequently results in social
injustice.

 There is no credible evidence or recognized research that demonstrates that the death penalty deters
crime, including drug offenses, any more than lengthy imprisonment does. It is not the severity of
punishment that deters wrongdoers, but its certainty.[6] To curb crime, the focus should be on reforming
the justice system, rendering it more effective, while also ensuring that it is humane. Investing in
 measures to address issues of public security and crime, such as more effective policing, and a fair and
functioning criminal justice system is essential for an ethical and justmanagement of crime[7].

 “No judiciary, anywhere in the world, is so robust that it can guarantee that innocent life will not be
taken, and there is an alarming body of evidence to indicate that even well-functioning legal systems have
sentenced to death men and women who were subsequently proven innocent.”--ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein,
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Important sources on the question of the death penalty that includes opinions and information
fromglobal scholars and leaders on this issue:

- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Documents/Moving-Away-from-the-Death-Penalty-2015-
web.pdf

- http://bangkok.ohchr.org/files/Moving%20away%20from%20the%20Death%20Penalty-
English%20for%20Website.pdf

-
http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/About_the_HRI/HRI_Activities/death_penalty_res
olution.aspx

National paper by the CHR on the death penalty:

-
http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%
20penalty.pdf

[1] Article III, Section 19 (1)

[2]http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%20p
enalty.pdf

[3] RA 9346, Section 1

[4] Currently more than 150 UN Member States have either abolished the death penalty or observe a
moratorium.http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45305#.V0F_HWdJnIU

[5]http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx, Article 2.1

[6]http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14339&LangID=E

[7]http://bangkok.ohchr.org/files/Moving%20away%20from%20the%20Death%20Penalty-
English%20for%20Website.pdf, paragraph2 1.3, 2.1, pages 8, 11
 Fact Sheet: Note on the death penalty and the Philippines

Posted in Features and Articles

Photo from Japan Daily Press

1. 1. National context

 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the use of the death penalty by stating ‘the death
penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua’.[1]

 In December 1993,President Ramos’ administration re-imposed the death penalty under Republic Act
(RA) 7659 adopted by Congress. The law listed a total of 46 crimes punishable by death. Over the years,
a number of new RAs and amendments to existing ones (8177, 8353 and 9165) further defined those acts
punishable by death resulting in 52 capital offenses, 30 of which were death-mandatory and 22 death-
eligible.

 In 1999, President Estrada had seven death-row convicts executed through lethal injection (RA
8177)which was reportedly intended to abate rising criminality. Following strong lobbying by the
Catholic Church and human rights groups, President Estrada issued a temporary moratorium in March
2000 to mark the Christian ‘Jubilee Year’.

 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the lifting of the de-facto moratorium on executions in
December 2003 in response to a reported rise in drug trafficking and kidnapping. Executions were
expected to resume in January 2004 when the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the lower court to
put to death two death-row inmates following testimonial evidence that exonerated them of their
crimes.[2]

 In April 2006, President Arroyo commuted the sentences of 1,230 death row and ultimately signed RA
9346 in June 2006 which abolished the use of capital punishment[3]. Congress had overwhelmingly
supported the abolishment of the practice in their vote for the RA earlier that month replacing the death
penalty with life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.

 RA 9346 states, inter alia, ‘The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly,
Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the
Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed, Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws,
executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.
1. 2. International context

 The Philippines is party to 8 of the 9 core international human rights treaties. The right to life is at the
center ofthese international treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 The Philippines has led the way in Asia in prohibiting the use of the death penalty. The 1987 Philippines’
Constitution was the first in Asia to prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating that: ‘the death penalty
shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it.

 The Philippines was one of 104 UN Member States to vote at the 2007 UN General Assembly in favor of
a worldwide moratorium on executions in the aim of abolishing the death penalty, and voted in favor of
every subsequent death penalty resolution in 2008, 2010 and 2012.[4]

 The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at the
abolition of the death penalty:

 In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second Optional
Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death penalty within
their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation. Reintroduction of the death
penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservationallowing execution "in time of war pursuant to a
conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime"[5] was made at the
time of ratification which is not the case for the Philippines.

 There is no withdrawal or denunciation mechanism for State’s that are party to the Second Optional
Protocol. The absence in the Protocol of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that once a State has
ratified the Second Optional Protocol the death penalty can never be reintroduced without violating
international law.

1. 3. General information on the death penalty

 Killing people through the use of the death penalty is an irreversible act which has wrongfully killed
many innocent people across the world. It prohibits the correction of mistakes by the justice system and
leaves no room for human error, with the gravest of consequences.Democratic and just societies are, by
definition, required to provide due process to people before the law.

 The death penalty often violates the right to equality and non-discrimination. Statistics worldwide have
repeatedly demonstrated that the use of the death penalty consistently and disproportionately
 discriminates against the poor and most marginalized individuals and subsequently results in social
injustice.

 There is no credible evidence or recognized research that demonstrates that the death penalty deters
crime, including drug offenses, any more than lengthy imprisonment does. It is not the severity of
punishment that deters wrongdoers, but its certainty.[6] To curb crime, the focus should be on reforming
the justice system, rendering it more effective, while also ensuring that it is humane. Investing in
measures to address issues of public security and crime, such as more effective policing, and a fair and
functioning criminal justice system is essential for an ethical and justmanagement of crime[7].

 “No judiciary, anywhere in the world, is so robust that it can guarantee that innocent life will not be
taken, and there is an alarming body of evidence to indicate that even well-functioning legal systems have
sentenced to death men and women who were subsequently proven innocent.”--ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein,
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Important sources on the question of the death penalty that includes opinions and information
fromglobal scholars and leaders on this issue:

- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Documents/Moving-Away-from-the-Death-Penalty-2015-
web.pdf

- http://bangkok.ohchr.org/files/Moving%20away%20from%20the%20Death%20Penalty-
English%20for%20Website.pdf

-
http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/About_the_HRI/HRI_Activities/death_penalty_res
olution.aspx

National paper by the CHR on the death penalty:

-
http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%
20penalty.pdf

[1] Article III, Section 19 (1)

[2]http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%20p
enalty.pdf

[3] RA 9346, Section 1

[4] Currently more than 150 UN Member States have either abolished the death penalty or observe a
moratorium.http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45305#.V0F_HWdJnIU

[5]http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx, Article 2.1

[6]http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14339&LangID=E

[7]http://bangkok.ohchr.org/files/Moving%20away%20from%20the%20Death%20Penalty-
English%20for%20Website.pdf, paragraph2 1.3, 2.1, pages 8, 11

The adoption of a draft law by the Philippine House of Representatives to revive the death
penalty sets the country on a dangerous path in flagrant violation of its international legal
obligations, Amnesty International said today.

“The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of drugs is simply wrong. The resumption of
executions will not rid the Philippines of problems associated with drugs or deter crime. It is an
inhumane, ineffective punishment and is never the solution. The Philippines’ attempts to
reintroduce it are clearly unlawful. This will just earn the country notoriety as one of the few
countries to revive its horrific use,” said Champa Patel, Amnesty International’s Director for
Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Today, the House of Representatives of the Philippines adopted on its third and final reading of
House Bill 4727, a measure put forward by President Duterte’s majority coalition to reintroduce
the death penalty.

The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of drugs is simply wrong. The resumption of
executions will not rid the Philippines of problems associated with drugs or deter crime. It is an
inhumane, ineffective punishment and is never the solution. The Philippines’ attempts to
reintroduce it are clearly unlawful

Champa Patel

The proposal was passed with 216 votes in favour, 54 against and one abstention. The Speaker
of the House openly threatened to strip members of Congress of key positions if they dared to
vote against the bill, or even abstain from voting. The bill will now go to the Senate.

“The Senate is now the Philippines’ last real hope of upholding its international obligations and
rescuing the country from this backwards step,” said Champa Patel.

The draft law has been passed at a time when the country is reeling from a wave of more than
8,000 deaths, many of them through extrajudicial executions in its “war on drugs” since
President Rodrigo Duterte came to power on 30 June 2016.

Amnesty International is opposed to the death penalty for all crimes and in all circumstances.
Under international law, the death penalty must be restricted to most serious crimes, and drug
related crimes do not meet this threshold. There is also no evidence to show that the death
penalty has a unique deterrent effect.
“The death penalty for alleged drug offenders, like extrajudicial executions, violates international
law, deprives people of the right to life, and disproportionately targets the poor,” said Champa
Patel.

In 2007 the Philippines ratified an international treaty that categorically prohibits executions and
commits the country to the abolition of the death penalty. Legally, this obligation cannot be
withdrawn at any time.

Since the death penalty was abolished in 2006, the Philippines has been a strong advocate
against capital punishment and has championed several initiatives to this end in international
forums. It has also worked to commute the death sentences imposed on Filipino nationals
abroad, such as overseas workers.

“If the Philippines authorities want to deal with the root causes of drug-related offences, they
should support humane, voluntary, health-focused and evidence-based policies as an
alternative,” said Champa Patel.

Background

House Bill 4727 is a consolidated version of several proposals adopted by the Sub-Committee
on Judicial Reforms of the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives on 29
November 2016.

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.