Pro for Reimposition of the Death Penalty

Historically, it has been made known that the capital punishment—death penalty, has
been in imposition especially for those who have committed what society believes to be the most
heinous of crimes; such as murder, treason, rape, and even for drugs,. Capital punishment, also
called death penalty, is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a
court of law of a criminal offense1. Many human right advocates opposed this type of penalty
claiming that it is inhumane or immoral or unconstitutional. Countering such opposition, their
argument revolve around how the death penalty is used as a negative reinforcement mainly to
deter others from committing heinous crimes. In the Philippines, this capital punishment have
been in an “on-off” mode situation. In the reign of the former President Gloria Arroyo, while it
was existing, but due to the pressure imposed on her especially by the Catholic Church she
decided to suspend, if not abolished, such punishment2. Presently, a bill is now being pondered
upon to bring back the death penalty— causing quite an uproar not only in the Philippines but
internationally as well. The question now lies: Why should the death penalty be brought back?

Roger Hood, one of the writers in Britannica stated three main reasons revolving mainly
on morality, practicality, and utilitarian3. Firstly, for morality sake, those in favor of this
punishment believe that those who committed murder had impliedly forfeited their own right to
life. Thus, it is justifiable if what is sentenced for the accused is the death penalty—this is an act
of retribution—a lawful vengeance for the relatives of the victim and other law abiding citizens.
Second, for utilitarian perspective, it is believed that this will serve as an example to deter others
from committing the same as it causes fear to act. Lastly, in a practical sense, it is seen to fashion
laws and procedures in order to assure the execution be brought to those who truly deserves the
death sentenced. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), a case in the U.S. where defendant was convicted
for armed robbery and murder; many said that the imposition of the capital penalty is
unconstitutional and excessive. However, the court favored such imposition and declared it
constitutional for the accused’s conviction for murder4.

Many see that the death penalty is unjust because those mainly affected are the poor and
less fortunate who cannot afford good counsel. But, it would seem unjust if the reason for not
reimposing such penalty is because of who will suffer the most. Accordingly, most argued that
by reimposing the death penalty those poor and unfortunate will suffer severely among others5.
However, those who used this type of reasoning did not think it through, in my opinion, as it will
affect also those people who are more privileged in life—as the saying goes “no one is above the
law”. And, if the purpose of the law is equity and justice then it is only fitting that those who
deserve the harshest punishment must be given their due regardless of wealth, rank, and status.
Though it may seem as an act of vengeance, but the law seeks to set an example so that the most
gruesome of crimes will not be repeated. It is only imposed as a way to have order and peace as
it will create fear in the minds of those with criminal intent. If we cannot get society to act based
on positive reinforcement then maybe we need to resort to a harsher manner. Thus, the death
penalty should be reimposed yet still subject to allowance such as allowing appeal to convicts in
order to give them a chance for reformation.

1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-punishment
2
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines
3
https://www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice
4
https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummaries/gregg
5
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines