A Crime Must Not Be Penalized with an Added Crime

As a kind of capital punishment, the death penalty is the imposition of death on

someone who has been found guilty by a court of law of committing serious crimes or
offenses that carry the possibility of life imprisonment. Death punishment in the
Philippines is established by Republic Act No. 7659, which is an ordinance to enforce
the death penalty for certain severe offenses, revising the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and other special penal laws for that purpose, among other things (Official
Gazette, 1993). In the Philippines and other parts of the globe, the legalization of the
death penalty is one of the most often discussed subjects among individuals.
The use of the death penalty may be traced back to pre-Spanish times, when
Filipinos, however seldom, were already using it in their daily lives. The Spanish also
enforced it on natives who revolted against them, and it was kept in place throughout
the American era. According to the ECPM (2017), the death penalty was applied
throughout the Martial Law period from 1965 to 1986. Despite the fact that it was
banned during Cory Aquino's administration, it was reinstated when Ramos assumed
the presidency. In addition, it was present throughout Estrada's and Arroyo's terms, but
as a result of pressure from the Catholic Church, Arroyo quickly terminated its
implementation in 2006 (Conde, 2020).
Furthermore, in recent days, the death penalty has begun to reemerge as a topic
of debate and disagreement. When considering the Philippine context, the death
penalty is deemed impracticable, not applicable, and unneeded for various reasons and
specific scenarios. As a result, the legalization of the death penalty for offenders in the
nation must be rejected.
Death penalties are immoral for a variety of reasons, the most important of which
is that they empower the state to pick who should be killed and to murder in the name of
justice. In most cases, death penalties are handed out in the wake of a homicide.
However, this facilitates the eye for an eye philosophy, as well as the acceptance of
murder in some situations when it should not be accepted at all under normal conditions
(Anderson, 2019). Also, if the goal is to administer a severe penalty that is relative to the
quantity of pain the criminal has caused, permitting them to spend a life in solitary with
the slight possibility of regaining their freedom would be much worse than a swift death.
The death penalty is the most severe, inhumane, and humiliating form of punishment
available today. Because of this, the implementation of the death penalty in the
Philippines must be condemned in all instances, regardless of who is charged, the kind
or circumstances of a crime, guilt, or innocence of a defendant (Amnesty International,
2021).
Moreover, our country has a faulty legal system, because of this the death
penalty is impractical and incompatible with the culture of the majority, and it is just not
consistent with the country’s tragic kind of society. It has not been shown to be a proven
deterrent to crime in the Philippines. According to Valderrama (2015), a just criminal
justice system is required in order for the death sentence to be both practical and
efficient in its use. The criminal justice system in our nation, on the other hand, is riddled
with flaws, including shoddy police work, pressured statements, inadequate defense
counsel, perjured testimony, and trial court rulings based on evidence that seems to be
inconclusive at best. Furthermore, the death penalty is not practicable in the Philippines
since it is incompatible with the culture of the majority of Filipinos, who detest it because
we stand in the intrinsic worth of human life. In a way, we desire the death penalty
because we do not want murders to occur, yet we nevertheless apply the death penalty
for those who do.
As in opposition to these, several counterclaims have been mentioned by various
pro-death penalties. For instance, they argued that the judicial system is constantly
changing in order to maximize justice and that the fact that the legal system may make
a bad judgment does not imply that the death penalty is unjust or immoral (Goodman,
2022). In the Philippines, every effort will be taken to provide death row inmates with the
opportunity to dispute the judgments of the legal system. It may also provide some
closure to the relatives of the victims, which may help them in dealing with their grief. In
the case of a person convicted of a death penalty, there is an understandable
outpouring of compassion or empathy. Because of this legal arrangement, these
families are losing a loved one. The victim's family has also suffered the loss of a loved
one. That is, the criminal who has chosen to perpetrate the act of death punishment
does not deserve pity. There is always the risk that a criminal sentenced to life without
parole would speak out about their side of the story, recount the activities they
performed, or threaten violence to other family members if they are executed. The use
of capital punishment or death penalty will finally put an end to this problem, allowing
the victim's family to feel secure once again in their home.
However, there may be certain benefits to doing so. The legalization of the death
penalty will unavoidably have more severe negative consequences for the whole nation
after this legislation has been reenacted and reimplemented, as has been shown in the
past. It is paradoxical that a country would criticize the practice of murder while also
engaging in the same conduct. By doing so, we are basically advocating for the right to
life by depriving others of it. If the objective of any punishment is to teach us what we
should and should not do, then the justice system would be better served by refusing to
participate in killings in order to more effectively teach the illegality of murdering. Briefly
stated, the death penalty violates the most fundamental human rights, namely, the right
to life.
With these in mind, death penalty breaches the inclusion of individuals not to be
submitted to torture or other cruel and inhumane treatment. There is also the possibility
that injustices may occur in the future, resulting in the deaths of innocent individuals
despite the fact that they have no connection to the crime. In the end, the problems of
the death sentence exceed the benefits of the punishment. Consequently, the death
sentence is impracticable, not helpful, and ultimately useless to implement. Because, as
it has been stated, an eye for an eye would only result in the whole world being blind.
Taking everything into consideration, a single offense should not be rendered more
severe by the inclusion of the death sentence.
References
Amnesty International. (2021). Death Penalty. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-
penalty/
Anderson, T. (2019). The death penalty is immoral and unconstitutional. The Reflector.
http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/article_1291cdb2-cf5d-11e9-925e-3bd70301a312.html
Conde, C. (2020). Death Penalty Danger in the Philippines. Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines
ECPM. (2017). Towards a return of the death penalty in the Philippines? Ensemble Contre La
Peine de Mort. https://www.ecpm.org/en/towards-a-return-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-
philippines/
Goodman, P. (2022). The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty. Soapboxie.
https://soapboxie.com/government/Death-Penalty-Pros-and-Cons
Republic Act No. 7659 | GOVPH. (1993). Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1993/12/13/republic-act-no-7659/
Valderrama, L. (2015). Exit Essay: PRACTICALITY OF DEATH PENALTY. Acoustic.
https://a55avalderramalauren.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/exit-essay-practicality-of-death-
penalty/