Not practicable

1st point: DEATH PENALTY IS NOT A PROVEN DETERRENT TO FUTURE MURDERS

The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a
deterrent than a sentence of life imprisonment. Criminologists such as William Bowers of Northeastern
University said that society is brutalized by the use of death penalty and this increases the ritual hood of murder.
According to deathpenalty.info.msu.edu/, the US with the death penalty has a higher rate than the countries of
Europe and Canada which do not use death penalty. Further studies show which could be found in a public faith,
a social witness authored by National Council of Churches in the Philippines Amnesty International group 204,
Sweden section, Letter to Bishop La Verne Mercado, dated August 22, 1989: Dr. Roger Hood from Oxford
University found that the number of Homicides in several countries including Canada, Australia and Jamaica
have stayed the same or even fallen after the abolition of death penalty. Sociologically speaking, the Amnesty
International arrive to a conclusion that factors like education, unemployment and poverty are more relevant in
crime causation rather than the absence of death penalty.
2nd Point: THERE IS ALWAYS A POSIBILITY OF ERROR IN CONDEMNING A PERSON TO DEATH
The death penalty alone imposes irrevocable sentence, once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make
amends if a mistake have been made. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. Amnesty International interviewed
inmates in the Philippines and they were surprised to find out that illegal methods including planting of
evidences, and the use of ill treatments and torture to secure confessions from criminal suspects. In one case,
involving Eusebio Molijan, sentenced to death for multiple murder during an attempted robbery in 1950 and
executed by electrocution in 1958, there remains concern, that he may have been falsely convicted. Eusebio
Molijan was convicted on the strength of a written confession which he retracted during his trial, saying he had
been punched in the stomach and beaten by a piece of wood by police to force him to confess. He also claimed
he has been forced against his will to participate in the robbery and that another man had planned and carried out
the murders. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Molijan was
the instigator of the crime, but his death sentence was confirmed.
Not only Eusebio Molijar is the victim of injustice, as well as:
Fernando Galera 26 years old, fish vendor, innocent but sentenced to death because he cant afford to pay
competent lawyers (4/1994)
Richard Ong 33, innocent who was sentenced to death in (12/1994) 8/1996. He was tortured and confessed
something which he didnt do.
Hideshi Suzuki 38, Japanese man sentenced to death in 12/1994 because of marijuana trafficking. H claimed
that the marijuana were planted on him by a police officer.
Those are a few of the many cases which proves that the judicial system in the Philippines is sometimes
inefficient, unfair, unjust and imperfect which should be given priority and to strengthen.
3rd Point: THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS LIFE; GOD IS THE GIVER OF
LIFE AND ONLY HE CAN TAKE IT.
In the book A Public Faith, a Social Witness authored by the NCCP, According to the United Methodist Church
General Conference, We cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking a life . It violates
our deepest belief in God as the creator and the redeemer of human life. In this respect, there can be no assertion
that human life can take humanely by the state. Indeed, in the long run, the use of death penalty by the state will
increase the acceptance of revenge in our society and will give official sanction to a climate of violence.
The National Council of Churches in the Philippines argued that execution prevents that repentance and
rehabilitation of offenders is contrary of Christian love and violates the sanctity of human life. They have the
right to repent for their sins. If somebody commits a crime, let the government authorities punish that person but
not to the extent of death penalty. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as they better
correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the
human person.
As a conclusion, we in the negative side believe that death penalty should not be reimposed. S a student of a
Christian University, we should uphold the teachings of Christ which is love and reconciliation. Page 6 of the
FCU student manual 2010, 2nd paragraph states the philosophy of the school.
Filamer Christian University is committed to the education of the person, the development of God given talents,
enrichment of intellect, the refinement of character, reverence to God and the appreciation of Gods creation.
How could you revere God if you are fighting for death penalty should be reimposed? How could you appreciate
his creation if you are taking the life of it?
Let us all bear in mind that Jesus himself is a victim of capital punishment instead of retribution and revenge, he
forgave those who humiliated him and even prayed for the. If God can forgive, why cant we? As God said,
Love thy neighbor as yourself.