Buenavista

National High
School
ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES
2ND GRADING EXAMINATION POSITION PAPER

SUMBITTED BY: Group 4

SUBMITTED TO: JOHN MOISES BAJANDE

 BUENAVISTA NATIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL

ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES POSITION

PAPER

TOPIC: DEATH PENALTY

COUNTRY: PHILIPPINES

NAMES:

1. Anali Barbon
2. Jomaica Abellar
3. Clarence Face Villajos
4. Shiela Mae Naga
5. Jescerie Mislang
6. Rubella Shane Villapaña
7. Rosario Pabalate
8. Dexter Bayeta

INTRODUCTION:

Death penalty is the legal process of in which a person is punished and put to death for a crime. It is
considered as the ultimate devial of human rights, if a person is punished in this manner, a death
sentence is a judicial decree whereas execution is the real process of the cause of death of the person.
The death penalty bill has been amended to limit its coverage to drug-related offenses, in a bid to
support the administration’s bloody narcotics crackdown that has claimed over 7,000 lives.The bill as it
has been amended excluded plunder, rape and treason from the death sentence.The bill will not impose
a mandatory death sentence, giving the judge the leeway whether to impose life sentence or the
maximum penalty of death on convicts.The bill will punish with death or life imprisonment the following
drug-related offenses: importation of dangerous drugssale, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs maintenance of a den, dive or resort
manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals misappropriation,
misapplication or failure to account for confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs planting of
evidence. Possession of drugs will only be penalized with the maximum offense of life imprisonment.
The bill stated that the death penalty should not be imposed on children below 18 years old or senior
citizens over 70 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. The penalty will be carried out
by hanging, firing squad or lethal injection. The debate about the death penalty in the Philippines is
dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement. The culture of lies and deceit so
dominates that movement that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact, by both
advocates and opponents of capital punishment.

Imposition of death penalty is extraordinarily rare, when Republic Act No. 7659 imposed the death
penalty for heinous crimes more than 23 years ago, the crime rate—the number of crime incidents per
100,000 population—decreased from 145.7 in 1993 to 98 in 1998. In 1999, however, when six of the
seven executions under the Estrada administration happened, the crime rate rose to 111. After 2006,
when the death penalty was abolished, data showed that the crime rate inched up in 2009, while a
“downtrend” was seen from 2010 until 2012. It rose again in 2013. (Bureau of Justice Institute report)

The Philippines last executed a prisoner in 1976. Leo Echegaray, 38, who was convicted of raping his
10-year- old stepdaughter, died by lethal injection at a prison on the outskirts of Manila at 3:19 p.m.
(0719 GMT/2:19 a.m. EST). There are 915 people on death row in the Philippines during the year of
Estrada's CNN's report.

In the US, death penalty opponents (“opponents”) state that, “Those who support the death penalty
see it as a solution to violent crime.” Opponents, hereby, present one of many fabrications. In reality,
executions are seen as the appropriate punishment for certain criminals committing specific crimes. So
says the U.S. Supreme Court and so say most death penalty supporters(“advocates”).

Opponents of death penalty also states that "death penalty failed as deterrent." But the truth is it
didn't infact the president said during his second SONA in 2017, "Capital punishment is not only about
deterrence, it's also about retribution," he also explained that the essence of the country's penal code is
retribution. "Our criminal system uses the revised penal code. That is a law given to us by the Spaniards,
the original revised penal code, though it was translated into English. And those two books, the
definition of crimes and the penalties and everything, and the thrust of that revised penal code, ladies
and gentlemen, is the essence of retribution. That is why you have penalty, in the Philippines, it is really
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You took life, you must pay it with life. That is the only way to be
even. You cannot place a premium on the human mind that he will go straight."
 Death penalty is just punishable to drug related crimes only, which was stated under the House
Bill Number 4727. However, President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte wants plunder, rape to be next in line
among the heinous crimes punishable with death penalty.

Moreover, opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending
or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal
taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnaping
and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against one’s will. Is killing in self defense
the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Are rape and making love the same? Both
may result in sexual intercourse. How absurd. Opponents’ flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their
“factual” arguments – there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is
astounding.

A. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS

DEATH PENALTY SAVES LIFE

The incapacitation effect saves lives – that is, that by executing murderers you prevent them from
murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life (B.1-4, 7, 9, 10 & 15). The evidence of this is
conclusive and incontrovertible. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect also proves that executions
save innocent life (B.7-9 & 11-18). This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder
under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. There are many, perhaps thousands, of
such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Circumstances
dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives
saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever be able to
calculate. Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or
systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders
(B. 7-9 & 11-18). . However, such studies are inconclusive because there are also studies that find no
such effect. Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent
lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But,
if there is a general deterrent effect and we don’t execute murderers, we are sacrificing innocent lives. If
our judgement is in error regarding general deterrence, then such error must be made on the side of
saving innocent lives and not on the side of sacrificing innocent lives. This is a moral imperative.
Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect could not exist without the general deterrent effect bring
present. The individual deterrent effect is proven. Therefore, even though it may be statistically elusive,
the general deterrent effect is proven by individual deterrence. Individually and collectively, these three
effects present a strong morale argument for executions. Executions save lives. Again 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 amiscarriage 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). Our choice is to spare the lives of the murderers and to, thereby, sacrifice the lives
of the innocent or to execute those murderers and to, thereby, spare the lives of the innocent. What do
you choose?

There are four rational conclusions one can make regarding general, or systemic, deterrence. (1) If the
death penalty is not a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing our worst human rights
violators. (2) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing those criminals
and saving innocent lives. (3) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are
not sacrificing innocent lives. (4) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are
sacrificing innocent lives. Regarding deterrence, it is necessary to err on the side of saving innocent life
and not to err on the side of sacrificing innocent life. These are moral imperatives.

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).

Moreover, 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?

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)

With no death penalty and only life without parole (LWOP), there is no deterrent for LWOP inmates
killing others while in prison or after escape. Indeed, there is actually a positive incentive to murder if a
criminal has committed a LWOP offense and had not yet been captured. Currently, there are a number of
inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment could not be
increased because there is no death penalty in those states. Therefore, they will never be punished for
those crimes. Never. Totally unacceptable, by any standard. Not surprisingly, death penalty opponents
believe that LWOP is more severe than the death penalty. Hamilton, V., & Rakin, L.: “Interpreting the 8th
Amendment”, Bedau, H., & Pierce, C., ed., Capital Punishment in the United States, New York, AMS,
1976. This absurd belief, which has now become the newest mantra of opponents, is contradicted by all
other surveyed groups, including prisoners (B.11 & 16).

Death Penalty opponents claim that there is a “brutalization effect” with executions, meaning, that
executions show a low regard for human life and do, thereby, cause an increase in the murder rate. If the
brutalization effect is real, it would be the only known legal sanction to cause an increase in wrongful
behavior. Why would criminals become more likely to engage in illegal activities because the
punishments for those activities become more severe? How absurd. Have dramatic increases in the rates
of incarceration resulted in dramatic increases in kidnappings? Just the opposite. Further denouncing the
brutalization effect is the fact that many respected studies show that executions do produce an
individual and a general deterrent effect. And, there is, of course, common sense.

Furthermore, 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.

Death Feared

The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole
is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers
and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. When the death
penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most. While it is obvious that the fear of execution did not
deter those murderers from committing a capital crime, it is also clear that such fear is reduced because
executions are neither swift nor sure in the Philippines. However, as the probability of that punishment
rises for those murderers, even they show a great fear of the death penalty. Although you will never
deter all murderers, the effect of deterrence will rise as the probability of executions rise. Because, as
the probability of executions rises, the fear of that punishment will also rise. And, that which we fear the
most deters the most. Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as the most feared punishment, much
more so than life without parole. Sehba, L. & Nathan, G., “Further Explorations in the Scale of Penalties”,
British Journal of Criminology, 24:221-249, 1984. (Bilibid Detainees; internet.)

Opponents proclaim that the death penalty is a barbaric act so dreadful in its implications that
we can hardly bear to contemplate the horrors of its terrible character. On the other hand, they also
assert that potential murderers, when confronted with the horrors of execution, will not be deterred by
its infliction upon them. That proposition is, of course, absurd on the face of it (Revised from M. Stanton
Evans, Clear and Present Danger).

The individual deterrent effect is proven by many, perhaps thousands, of individual, fully
documented cases where criminals have admitted that the death penalty was the specific threat which
deterred them and/or others from committing murder. Indeed, one study showed that criminals, by a
5:1 ratio, believed that capital punishment was a significant enough deterrent to prevent them and/or
others from murdering their victims (People vs Love, 56 Cal 2d 720 (1961), McComb, J. dissenting. see
also: (A) “Controversy Over Capital Punishment”, Congressional Digest, Jan.,’73, p. 13; (B) L.A.P.D. study
within Aikens vs Ca., No. 68-5027, Oct. Term, 1971, U.S. Supreme Court; ( C ) Carol Vance. Furthermore,
death penalty will serves as a warning, like a lighthouse throwing lights and beams in the sea to prevent
any possible shipwrecks– the crimes from increasing because indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty
as a much more severe penalty than they do life without parole (B.12).While it is difficult to prove a
negative, i.e. “How many murders does the death penalty cause not to occur?”, there is absolute
evidence that the individual deterrent effect of executions saves innocent lives. Extensive worldwide
research on individual deterrence would, undoubtedly, reveal significant general deterrent effect.

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. 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). We said it and we'll say
it again death penalty is the punishment given to those persons who committed 'henious crimes' and
execution is the process, and by process it means you don't just execute someone without proper basis,
facts and solid evidence, it is a process in which it needs trials to prove the doer or the assailant guilty or
not. In fact, there are at least 28 procedures necessary in reaching a death sentence. They are: (1) The
crime must be one listed as a capital crime in the penal code; (2) a suspect must be identified and
arrested; (3) Beginning with the Bill of Rights, the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rules, U.S.
criminal defendants and those convicted have, by far, the most extensive protections ever devised and
implemented; (4) in Harris County (Houston), Texas a panel of district attorneys determines if the case
merits the death penalty as prescribed by the Penal Code (See 12-19); (5) a grand jury must indict the
suspect for capital murder; (6) the suspect is presumed innocent; (7) the prosecution must prove to the
judge that the evidence, upon which the prosecution will rely, is admissible; (8) the defendant is
assigned two attorneys. County funds are provided to defense counsel for investigation and trial; (9) it
takes 3-12 weeks to select a jury; (10) trial is conducted; (11) the burden of proof is on the state; (12) all
12 jury members must find for guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the jury knows nothing
of the defendant’s previous criminal acts, at this stage. If found guilty, then, the punishment phase of the
trial begins; (13) the prosecution presents additional damning evidence against the murderer, i.e., other
crimes, victims, victims’ or survivors’ testimony, police reports, etc; (14) In order to find for death, the
issues to be resolved by the jury are {a}(14) did the defendant not only act willfully in causing the death,
but act deliberately, as well, {b}(15) does the evidence show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a
likelihood that the defendant will be dangerous in the future, {c}(16) if there was provocation on the part
of the victim, were the defendant’s actions unreasonable in response to the provocations and {d}(17) is
there something about the defendant that diminishes moral responsibility or in some way mitigates
against the imposition of death for the defendant in this case, whereby, (18) the defense presents all
mitigating circumstance, which may lesson the probability of the jury imposing death, i.e., family
problems, substance abuse, age, no prior criminal record, mental disability, parental abuse, poverty, etc.
Witnesses, such as family, friends, co-workers, etc., are presented to speak and offer the positive
qualities of the defendant; (19) the jury must take into consideration those mitigating circumstances
(Penry decision) and, if only 1 juror believes that the perpetrator deserves leniency because of any
mitigating circumstances, then the jury cannot impose the death penalty; and (20) when the death
sentence is imposed, the perpetrator receives an automatic appeal. (21& 22) the death row inmate is
provided an attorney, or attorneys, to handle the direct appeal, at county expense, through both the
state and federal courts; (23 & 24) the state pays attorneys for the inmate’s habeas corpus appeals, at
both the state and federal level; (25 & 26) death row inmates may be granted a hearing, in both state
and federal court, to present post conviction claims of innocence. The burden of proof for these claims
of innocence mirrors that used by the Federal courts; and (27 & 28) Convictions and sentences are
subject to pardon or sentence reduction through the executive branch of government, at both the state
level (Governor) and federal level (President).

These 28 procedures represent the broad categories of defendant and inmate protections. Within these
28 procedures, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of additional procedures and protections.

In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the
evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
a huge advantage for the defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution.

To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the prosecution in each of five specific
areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16, and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the
prosecution must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%. To avoid death, the defendant
must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or 1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the
inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200
individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims. The average time on death row for those
executed from 1977-1995 was 9 years. For the 56 executed in 1995, the average time on death row was
11 years, 2 months – a new record of longevity, surpassing the old record of 10 years, 2 months, set in
1994. 60 death row inmates have been on death row for over 18 years. (Capital Punishment 1994 &
1995, BJS 1995 & 1996). Could new longevity records of from 12-18 years on death row be set for those
executed from 1996-2002, respectively? Yes. Even with the new federal and state laws? Easily.

But the problem with us is, we Filipinos are very fragile that sometimes even if we already know how
henious and dangerous one can be we keep on turning blind eyes for a reason that we don't want any
blood to shed, but come to think of it, a criminal will always be a criminal. Freed or not, if he wants to
murder someone he will do it. There are two mistakes we can make with those convicted of violent
crimes. First, we can misjudge their character and keep them incarcerated too long, when they could
have become constructive free persons, repaying even more their debt to society and to their victim(s).
Secondly, we can misjudge their character and release them too soon, so that they further destroy the
lives of our children, our brothers and sisters, our spouses and our parents, creating additional
economic, physical, emotional and spiritual loss. Thus, there were no certain research that proves the
executions of innocent.
Death Penalty is pro-poor

Death penalty brings an equality to all social races, it deters racist from desctiminating the poor,
although In May 2004, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) here in the Philippines conducted a
survey on 890 death row inmates. (The Philippines still had the death penalty on its law books
at the time.) The survey revealed that 79% of death row inmates had not reached college and
63% were previously employed in blue-collar work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and
construction. Furthermore, two-thirds of death row inmates had been earning a monthly wage at
or below the minimum wage. But those rich people who kills poor people are more likely to get death
penalty.). Furthermore, rich people who kill poor are slightly more likely to be on death row than poor
people who kills rich people. Murderers are put to death, not based on the race or economic status of
the victim or the murderer, but based upon death penalty statutes, the aggravated nature of and all
specific circumstances of the crime, the criminal background of the murderer, and the other specific
factors mandated by Supreme Court decisions. Since 1973, there is absolutely no credible evidence to
support any other conclusion. Despicably, opponents cry “RACISM!” to further their agenda, knowing,
full well, that such claims are false. Successful capital prosecutions have nothing to do with the race of
the victim or of the defendant and everything to do with the nature of the crimes. Justice is justice and
law is law, it couldn't and shouldn't be brought by money. There are also some of those who claim that
the death penalty is sexist. The ratio of men to women on death row (and executed) is 68:1, or 3400:50
(NAACP LDF, Spring 1996). Men committed 476,937 rapes, robberies and burglaries, women 47,357 or a
10:1 ratio. From 1976-94, men committed 7 times as many murders as women, or 7:1. (Sourcebook ‘94,
BJS ‘95, tb.4.9 and 3.22). Therefore, it may be statistically predictable that men are, by a 70:1 ratio (10:1
X 7:1), more likely to be on death row than are women. Women appear to be on death row in numbers
that would be expected. However, one would expect that 5 women would have been executed since
1976, when only 1 has been executed.

Death Penalty – Right to Live

The opponent state the Senate is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is murder,
then killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars, especially wars with our
fellow countrymen. 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. Opponents stated that, "if life is sacred then you can't kill someone by execution it is beyond
and ultimately cruel to the human rights." But we say an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth– life is sacred
and it is life that you took so it is only even and just to take the life of those criminals who mercilessly
taking life–by execution. And there is mere crucial fact that most people are forgetting– the thousand
lives of innocent victims who die every year by the hands of heartless murderers. There more murderers
our there than people who are wrongly convicted, and that is what we must remember. So death penalty
give us the right to live. To live with the assurance of being safety from any possible 'henious crimes'.

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.

Death penalty covets 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).

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).

Duterte wants to reinstate death penalty for a reason– to stop the increase of come rates and to put
justice and fairness between the criminal and the family of the victim. That is why he stated in his SONA
that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is justice. “The opposition to capital punishment is not based
on Scripture but on a vague philosophical idea that the taking of a life is wrong, under every
circumstance, and fails to distinguish adequately between killing and murder, between punishment and
crime. The argument that capital punishment rules out the possibility of repentance for crime is
unrealistic. If a wanton killer does not repent when the sentence of death is upon him, he certainly will
not repent if he has 20-50 years of life imprisonment. The sentence of death on a killer is more
redemptive than the tendency to excuse his crime as no worse than grand larceny. Mercy always infers a
tacit recognition that justice and rightness are to be expected. The Holy God does not show mercy
contrary to his righteousness but in harmony with it. That is why the awful Cross was necessary and a
righteous Christ had to hang on it. That is why God’s redemption is always conditioned by one’s heart
attitude. The Church and individual Christians should be active in their witness to the Gospel of love and
forgiveness; but meanwhile wherever and whenever God’s love and mercy are rejected, as in crime,
natural law and order must prevail, not as extraneous to redemption but as part of the whole scope of
God’s dealings with man. No matter how often a jury recommends mercy, the law of capital punishment
must stand as the silent but powerful witness to the sacredness of God-given life. Active justice must be
administered when the sacredness of life is violated. Life is sacred, and he who violates the sacredness of
life through murder must pay the supreme penalty. , p. 63-72, Essays on the Death Penalty, ed. T. Robert
Ingram, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Vallenga is former Associate Executive of the United Presbyterian
Church (USA).

CONCLUSION:

We believe that 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. Reimposing the death
penalty to execute and the eliminate those dangerous criminals and treacherous syndicates rooming
around the corner of our country that has been a long threat to the people and our country's security.
Death penalty saves lives and reduces crime rates. And it is what our country is needing right now, we
firmly believe in the deterrence effect of death penalty and the equality it brings thus, our judicial
system should also be fixed.