DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS:

Deterrent or Revenge
(Pros and Cons)
INTRODUCTION

What is Capital punishment? Capital punishment is the death penalty. It is used today and was used in
ancient times to punish a variety of offenses. Even the bible advocates death for murder and other crimes like
kidnapping and witchcraft.
When the word death penalty is used, it makes yelling and screaming from both sides of extremist. One side
may say deterrence, while the other side may say, but you may execute an innocent man.
Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System is the issue of capital punishment or
the death penalty. Capital punishment was legal until 1972, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in
Furman v. Georgia stating that it violated the Eight and Fourteen Amendments citing cruel and unusual
punishment. However, in 1976, the Supreme Court reversed itself with Gregg v. Georgia and reinstated the death
penalty but not all states have the death penalty.
Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Iowa, Main, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY (CONS)

Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate
What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The victim is already dead-you cannot bring him
back. When the opponents feel fear of death will prevent one from committing murder, it is not true because most
murders are done on the heat of passion when a person cannot think rationally. Therefore, how can one even have
time to think of fear in the heat of passion (Internet)?

ACLU and Murderers Penniless

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on executions and to put an end to
state-sanctioned murder in the United States. They claim it is very disturbing to anyone who values human life.
In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch, the American Bar Association said the quality of the legal
representation is substantial. Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants end up penniless by the time their case is
up for appeal. They claim they are treated unfairly. Most murderers who do not have any money, receive the death
penalty. Those who live in counties pro-death penalty are more likely to receive the death penalty. (Internet).

Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent

Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in
the day and weeks that follow. A good example is in the Linberg kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death
penalty for crime like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime instead of
preventing it (McClellan, G., 1961).
Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is inescapable when based on
human judgment . On the contrary, sometimes defendants insist on execution. They feel it is an act of kindness to
them. The argument here is - Is life imprisonment a crueler fate? Is there evidence supporting the usefulness of
the death penalty securing the life of the citizens (McClellan, G. 1961)?
Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered? This argument for continuation of the
death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but it has failed as a deterrent. There is no clear evidence because
empirical studies done in the 50s by Professor Thorsten Sellin, (sociologist) did not give support to deterrence
(McClellan, G., 1961).

Does not Discourage Crime

It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could be a strong argument if it could
be proved that the death penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers. There is strong evidence that the death
penalty does not discourage crime at all (McClellan, G., 1961).
Grant McClellan (1961) claims:
In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders fewer
than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire
Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of
these 10 states had abolished the death penalty.

The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to

fourteen killings per100,000 population were Nevada,
Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them
enforce the death penalty. The fact is that fear of the
death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate (p. 40).
Conviction of the Innocent Occurs
The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but those states have the most murders, and
the states that abolished the death penalty has less. Conviction of the innocent does occur and death makes a
miscarriage of justice irrevocable. Two states Maine and Rhode Island abolished the death penalty because of public
shame and remorse after they discovered they executed some innocent men.

Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime.

The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of history
executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under heavy weight. Crime
was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence shows execution does not act as a deterrent to capital
punishment.

Motives for Death Penalty - Revenge

According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may be for revenge. Legal
vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative to the private revenge of those who
feel harmed.

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)

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).

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? Are crime victims in the United States today the
forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?
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)
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.

Crime Rate Increases

Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not working. Millions have already been
killed and will be killed every year. According to Time Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United
States. Some are knifed, shot, or assaulted (Internet).
Crime growth has been going up in the past because of too much leniency going hand in hand with the increased
rate of people being victimized. There are many loop holes devised for offenders, and because of that crime rate
has increased drastically. Between l960 to 1968 crime rate increased 11 times. More and more people are
being murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed, etc. (Isenberg, I., 1997).

Free Will
When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to commit armed robbery,
murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions to become a killer or being falsely accused
of murder. What he is worried about is being a victim.

Deterrent in 27 States
Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty. According to Baily, who did a study
from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent
in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the study showed murder
rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14 nations who abolished the death penalty. It (the study)
claimed murder increased by 7% from five years before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition
(Internet).
Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich between the period of 1933 and 1969. He concluded An additional
execution per year may have resulted in fewer murders (Bedau, 1982, p. 323).
The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years. It is known, with all the appeals, the death
penalty is not swift! In fact, most murderers feel they most likely will never be put to death. If the death penalty
was swift and inevitable, there certainly would be a decrease in homicide rates. (Internet).

Death Feared
Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we
dont think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone
died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the
Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and
make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of
potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982).
In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, Actually being dead is no different from not being born, a (non) experience we
all had before being born. But death is not realized. The process of dying which is a different matter is usually
confused with it. In turn, dying is feared because death is expected, even though death is feared because it is
confused with dying (p. 338).
Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain,
death is universally feared. The life of a man should be sacred to each other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330).

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. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology
was flawed in l2 cases. 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).

Death Penalty Saves Lives

The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to abolish the death
penalty. Remember, the 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 a
miscarriage 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 thousands of innocent people who may be the next victim of murder (Internet).

Death Penalty - Right to Live

Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is murder, than killing
someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars. On the contrary, is it necessary to protect the
rights of a group of people. Hence, the death penalty is vital to protect a persons 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.

Bible Quotes
Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it gratifies the desire for
revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring Vengeance is mine (Romans 12:19). He thus
legitimized vengeance and reserved it to Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, The murderer shall surely be
put
to death (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted whatever the motive. Religious
tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330).
All religions believe having life is sacred. If we deprive someone else life, he only suffers minor
inconvenience; hence, we cheapen human lifethis is where we are at today.

Death Penalty Deterrent Effect

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.
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 equalitybecause 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).
Irwin 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).

Life is Sacred
In an interview with Professor van den Haag, a psychoanalyst and adjunct professor at New York University, was
questioned, Why do you favor the death penalty? His answer was that the Federal prison had a man sentenced
to Life who, since he has been in prison committed three more murders on three separate occasions .They were
prison guards and inmates. Theres no more punishment he can receive, therefore, in many cases, the death penalty
is the only penalty that can deter. He went on saying I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that
anyone who takes some ones life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and does not just suffer an
inconvenience about being put into prison for sometime (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 135)

An Eye for an Eye

Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and disregards society. Do you agree? Some
people say the that penalty is legalized murder because it is like an eye for an eye. The difference between
punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see
on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious
punish, the brutal acts.
Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life? Life in prison means in six months
the parole board can release the man to 12 years in some states. But even if it were real life imprisonment, its
deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty. The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable
penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most (Isenberg, I., 1977).
The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was an acceptable mess of
protecting society form wicked dissolute men Thomas Jefferson liked to talk about it (Carrington, F., 1978).
CONCLUSION
My research on issues on the death penalty is one of the most debatable in the criminal justice
system. Today, there are many pros and cons to this death penalty issues. However, if people weigh the arguments
properly, and have empathy for the victims, they will be more inclined to favor capital punishment. As a matter of
fact, most people in the U.S. today are in favor of it. But we need more states to enforce the death penalty.
As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty help to curtail future murderers, thus, we can save
more lives. The chances of murdering an innocent man is very minute.

My Opinion
In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty, because we can save innocent lives. Life to me is scared as
Professor Haag stated. My innocent nephew, Sean Burgado, who was brutally murdered by a shot gun to the
chest, did not have a choice to make a last statement or make a will before he died. The people on death row can
watch T.V. and enjoy their lives for another 20 years before they are executed. They can prepare their death by
making a will and a last statement. Seans murder is still unsolved, and the killer is enjoying his life
somewhere. The murderer(s) will probably murder another person some day.
I heard on the news last month, February 2000, where a 62 year-old grandmother, Betty Beets, was pleading
for her life because she was on death row and was going to be executed. At first, I felt very sorry for her, but after
doing research on her, I learned she had five husbands. She had already killed the fourth one, and served a prison
sentence for murder, and she got out of prison early. She murdered the fifth husband-she shot him, and buried him
in her back yard. Betty Beets was imprisoned a second time, and now was pleading for her life? It has been proven
these killers do it again and again. The rate of recidivism is high for people who commit murder and crimes. I feel
murderers should be executed the first time because chances are they will come out of prison and kill another
innocent person again. We need stricter laws and swift death penalty.
I belong to a group called Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). One of the woman came forward and told
me how her husband shot and killed her five year-old daughter which she witnessed on her birthday. He attempted
to kill the two-year old son, too, but fortunately, the gun he was using didnt go off a second time, because it was too
old and the sons life was sparred. Her husbands intention was to kill the two children, and himself on her (the
wifes) birthday. He said, if I cant have my children you wont either. Everything to her is still a nightmare.

He (the husband) was sentenced to death, but committed suicide in prison. She recently learned that prior to the
killing he had contracted someone $5,000 to burn their house while she and the kids were inside.
She said she would have gone to see her husband being executed if he lived because she didnt want him out
again. She said, To me, I think for the most part, I didnt care what happened to him. I just didnt want him to be
out again after what he did. I told the District Attorney that I was afraid that he would get out and try to finish what
he started (Email, personal communication- March 31, 2000).
There are too many stories like these where people deserve the death penalty for killing other people. If they
are released from prison, they will kill other innocent lives again.
I believe 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.
The laws today are too lenient. If there is no death penalty in your state, and a criminal kills someone, it is
because he felt he could get out in 10 years or less from prison. There is no fear of death for him. They see other
murderers in the state get away with murder, so they, too, can get away with it. They dont have to fear the death
penalty. In fact, I read where a husband intentionally moved to a non death penalty state, so he could murder his
wife and get away with it. Many murders are premeditated. People in the heat of passion should make it a point
to evade the argument or the environment. Remember it could be one of your loved ones. Can you imagine what it
would be like to have your loved one murdered? There are no words that can explain the loss of your loved one to
murder. Call your state legislature representatives today to enforce the death penalty in your state!

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ornellaspaper.htm
 Death Penalty: Moral and Judicial Debate under the Philippine Government

In the long history of the Philippines, the death penalty was known and accepted fact. The code of Kalantiao, the
oldest recorded body of laws of our early ancestors showed the strictness under the barangay that existed and based
their moral acceptance of right and wrong. For example, anyone caught stealing would be penalized by suffering the
loss of finger.

The graver the theft, the more fingers were cut and if the theft was very grave, the hands was chopped off, therefore
it is understandable that even in the Early periods of our history there are certain punishment for a offense, that even
the code of Kalantiao imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is considered as heinous crime.

Today, the State itself has different punishment opposite to its offence, our legislators implement and pass a Bill that
will sentenced a grave offender of crime, one of it is the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act which
gathers many controversies on its implementation, according to this act a criminal who has been proven guilty to a
heinous crime with the proper due process of law will be executed.

An eye for an eye does not mean vengeance, for the Almighty God himself said, vengeance is mine and by this he
meant he would met justice in accordance with his mysterious way through the Ten Commandments from which
morals laws were taken. Precisely no one has the right to deprive another person of his life, degrade him or her to the
status of an animal, or abuse and debase a person to the extent of destroying forever his or her dignity. But how
about the victims? Those who were murdered and raped, those children who were abduct for ramson and then killed,
for those school kids and teenagers who buys drugs and in the process slowly or make them criminals, rapist and
murderers while the pushers enrich themselves.

The death penalty itself on the other hand could strike fear in the minds of those criminals and make them think
twice before committing any act of violence. That the Capital punishment may act as an instrument with which the
righteous may be guarded against the offender. The enforcement of Capital Punishment under proper circumstances
places a high value on human life and upholds dignity of man, than making him stop to the level of criminals by
lashing out at them with similar brutality in the guise of justice.

In the Philippines where there is no clean and fair justice system, there is no doubt that if ever the Republic Act No.
7659 or the Death Penalty Act is reimposed there are many Filipino who will lose their right to life and many will be
sentenced with death penalty and die as it is said those who have less in life, have less in law, that the death penalty
will be biased to the poor ones who could be easily accused by the rich one or those who were set up to be pointed
out as the criminal. As long as bail is pegged on wealth and the enforcement of law is swayed by money, position
and possessions, the death penalty will be a sword of Damocles over the head of the impoverished and the weak.

We have not repented and turned from our evil ways, we continue to miss the mark. And so we become desperate
and hope to eradicate crime by wasting or executing the sinner, not the sin.

Hypotheses

This study tested well the hypothesis that there are significant, relevant and argumentative concepts and ideas
involving the analysis of death penalty under the Philippine Government. The study is an analysis of the extent of
the abolishment of death penalty: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government specifically it sought
answer to the following questions:

Do death penalty control and decrease the crime rate in the Philippines?
What are the reasons why death penalty was abolished?
What will be the possible psychological effect of death penalty to the criminals that was in jail?
What is the possible role of the church?

Rationale and Limitation of the Study

The study was limited to the analysis of the abolishment of the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act:
Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government. The study does not include other phrases such as how,
where, and what are the methods nor the process in death penalty.

The Capital Punishment

The expression Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty is ambiguous, referring to a species of acts, acts of
executing someone for conduct judge to be criminal. It often refers to a certain kind of social institution. The
institution of capital punishment is one pattern of punishment that forms part of our legal system in many, but not
all, societies. It involves certain roles like those of the executioner and the criminal and certain rules such as the rule
that only person condemned to death by courts is to be executed. In most society, the punishment for murder is
execution. In the Philippines we have the same act, the R.A. no. 7659 or the death penalty act.

Two Theories on Death Penalty

Classical theory (on which our Revised Penal Code is based) regards crime as the product of human free will, and
the purpose of penalty as retribution. Man is held accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains
unimpaired. For penal purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself, and a direct proportion
is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the offense. Hence, the death penalty for heinous
crimes.

Positivist theory, on the other hand, views human free will as a myth or at least a debatable matter. According to it,
man is subdued to occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which contrains him to do wrong contrary to
his free will. For this reason, man as a moral being is given primacy over deed, and crime is viewed as a social
phenomenon that can't be checked by retributive transactions, but by measures designed, cure or educate the
criminal.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR
THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states "Excessive fines shall
not be imposed nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.

WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful
offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society;

WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and
wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and
prosperity while at the same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to
maintain peace and order in the country;

WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize
the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;

Now, therefore,

Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only obedience
to its authority, but also to adopt such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society;
Sec. 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving
them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court.

Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article
shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

With treachery, taking advantage to superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
In consideration of price, reward or promise.
By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel, derailment of assault upon a railroad,
fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with use of any means involving great waste and ruin.
On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
With evident premeditation.
With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.

Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of the following circumstances:

By using force or intimidation.

When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:

When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the
victim.
When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
degree of consanguinity.
When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any
law enforcement agency.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."

Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall
import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug.

Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the Death Penalty Cases. - The
death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty
person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years
of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not
obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen
(15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The
transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter."

Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman
while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this
last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties
provided in Article 40.

In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the
Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power."

ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The classical and contemporary literature on the subject of capital punishment provides several very plausible
arguments designed to prove that the act of executing a person for conduct judge to be criminal is sometimes right.

Prevention

Capital punishment is sometimes morally justified as a means of preventing the criminal from committing additional
crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to
murder or rape once is very likely to act in socially harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a person
from going on to murder or rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is a far less effective means of
protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most prisoners are freed after a time-often having become most
dangerous than when they entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences. In any case, escape
is always possible. And even within the confines of prison, a condemned criminal may murder or rape a guard, a
fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing
additional acts of crime. Since it is the only right to protect the innocent member of the society from the most serious
crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right.

Retribution

While the arguments from preventions and deterrence look to the future and attempt to justify capital punishment by
an appeal to the future harm it will avoid, the argument from retribution looks to the past and tries to justify capital
punishment as the right response to the wrong that has been done. Granted that society would be unjustified in taking
a person's life in punishment for any trivial crime, capital punishment is just retribution for the greatest crimes. If
one person has killed another, it is only fir that he give his own life in return. Kidnapping and rape are also very
wrong that the person who commits these acts deserves the greatest penalty, death. Justice demands that each
individual be treated by others and by society as he deserves. The person who does good act ought to be rewarded
with good, and the person who does evil ought to suffer evil-each in proportion to the good or evil done. The
conception of justice implicit in this argument has traditionally been illustrated by the figure of a blindfold woman
holding a set of balance scales. The woman is blindfolded so that she cannot recognize her friends and enemies and
award the former more good and the latter more evil than they deserve. The balance scale symbolizes the element of
retribution, the notion that good or evil are to be awarded in return to the good or evil he has done. Applied to
punishment, this means that the punishment should fit the crime that the evil inflicted upon the condemned criminal
should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has done. Since the only penalty bad enough to equal the greatest
crime is death, and since justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution for his past misdeeds, and since it
is right to do what justice requires, capital punishment or death penalty is sometimes right.

Self-Defense

Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is sometimes an exercise of society's right to self defense.
Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life of another, there are exceptional cases where this
is morally justified, A person has right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life or limb. Society,
like the individual, has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is threatened. Now a murderer attacks not
only his individual victim, but the society itself. Since society is constituted by aggregate of individuals, to kill one
or more individual is already to begin to exterminate the society. Moreover, certain laws, such as the law prohibiting
murder, are necessary if any collections of individuals are to live together in organized society. Hence, to break
those laws that alone make the existence of society possible is to threaten that society with death. Capital
punishment is sometimes right because it is right for society to exercise its self defense, and in extreme cases capital
punishment or death penalty does not defend the society from the attacks of a criminal that threaten its very
existence.

ARGUMENTS AGAINTS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Any serious moral problem is two-sided. If all or most of the relevant considerations are on one side of the fence,
everyone knows where the right course of action lies and there is no real moral problem. In the case of every live
moral issue, like that of capital punishment, there is room for sincere and persistent disagreement because plausible
arguments on one side can be met with equally plausible argument on the other side of the issue. Having surveyed
the arguments in support of capital punishment, let us look at the arguments of those who insist that capital
punishment is always wrong, that it is never right to execute the condemned criminal no matter how evil his crime.

The Moral Law

Capital punishment is always wrong because it is always a violation of moral laws. The moral law consists of those
rules that specify which kinds of acts are morally right and which kinds are morally wrong. Historically, it has been
thought of in various ways. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral law is usually taken to be the set of commands
issued by God, whether limited to the Ten Commandments or including the many mandates inscribed in the book of
the bible. Rationalistic philosopher have tended to ignore or reject revelation and think of moral laws as self-evident
truths about right and wrong discoverable by the natural light of human reason. However the moral law may be
conceived, it is usually presumed to forbid killing, to prohibit the intentional killing of human being. Since the moral
law declares that killing a human being is always wrong and since the act of capital punishment is obviously an act
of killing a human being, capital punishment or death penalty is always wrong.

Monstrous Harm

Capital punishment or the death penalty is always wrong because it is always wrong to do monstrous harm.
Although lesser evils may be outweighed by greater goods, there are some acts that do such great harm that under no
circumstances could they be morally justified. The Nazi extermination of million of Jews inflicted such monstrous
harm upon these innocent people that no real or imagined benefits to humanity could overweigh its wrongness. On a
lesser scale, capital punishment also does almost indescribable harm. By definition, it deprives its victim of his every
life. The loss of a human life is the greatest of evil because life is the most precious of all human goods. Not only is
life the necessary condition of any other good at all, it is intrinsically good to the highest degree. That we prize life
above all other things is shown by the way we cling to life and resist death even when everything else seems lost.

In addition to the obvious harm of inflicting death, capital punishment causes cruel and inhuman suffering. It may be
that the moment of death is almost painless, although this is not always so. Still, the period of awaiting execution is
one of the most unrelieved tortures. With few if any interesting activities to distract the condemned prisoner, there is
little to think about but impending doom. Under these conditions, the fear of death, the deepest and most terrifying
of all the fears natural to the human psyche, results in a condition anxiety approaching constant anguish.

Unnecessary Evil

Some evils are morally justified because they are necessary. Under duress of circumstances, it may be necessary to
do evil because that is the only possible way to avoid some greater evil. The butchering of cattle, sheep and swine
may be justified by the fact that this is only way of sustaining the human population. Unfortunate as it is that any
animal need die, it is less bad that the brute animals perish than that human beings starve to death. This line of
argument does not justify hunting wild animals for mere pleasure, of course, for hunting is an necessary evil. Only
necessary evils, only those that must be done in order to prevent some worse calamity, are morally right. Now it may
be argued that the execution of criminals, like the killing of cattle, is necessary evil. The suffering and death inflicted
by capital punishment, evil as they are, are justified by the fact that the death penalty is the only effective means of
protecting society from the even greater evils of murder, rape and kidnapping. But this is not so. Capital punishment
is not necessary because there is another equally effective and less undesirable means of dealing with crime. Life
imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment in preventing and deterring crime. The condemned criminal
cannot continue his evil actions under close supervision, and the fear of life imprisonment will deter potential
criminal from doing wrong. Moreover, life imprisonment is a lesser evil than capital punishment. Admittedly, it
inflicts loss of freedom, personal humiliation and extreme boredom upon the criminal. But suffering is required by
the very nature and purpose of punishment, and these evils are less cruel than death and the agony of awaiting death.
Since the death penalty is an unnecessary evil and it is always wrong to do unnecessary evil, capital punishment is
always wrong.
Irremediability

Capital punishment is wrong because it is irremediable; there is no remedy for the act of execution. Unfortunately,
there re occasion when even the sternest advocate of harsh punishment deeply desire some remedy, for innocent
persons are occasionally condemned to death. Such judicial errors do not take place often, or at least are not often
detected, but when they do occur, we rebel at this gratuitous loss of innocent life and yearn for some remedy. Not all
punishment are beyond remedy. If someone is fined by the court as a penalty for alleged wrongdoing, his money can
be restored to him if it is subsequently discovered that he is innocent. If a person's innocence is established after he
has spent several years in prison, restitution is not possible. There is no way in which society can give back to
someone wrongly condemned those lost years of his life or undo the suffering he has lived through. Still, some
compensation is possible. Society can give its innocent victim a considerable sum of money to repay him, in part at
least, for what he has suffered at its hand. It would be naively sentimental to pretend that any compensation would
adequately balance the harm inflicted upon the person unjustly condemned to imprisonment, but some partial and
imperfect remedy is available for any such miscarriage of justice. In the case of capital punishment, no remedy of
any kind is available to make up in the slightest degree for the incalculable evil done by taking the life of an innocent
human being. Neither restitution nor compensation is possible, for there is no way in which society can give a
person's life back to him and no way to do good to someone who is dead and gone. Since the possibility of error can
never be eradicated from any human judicial procedure, irremediable penalties are always wrong. Since capital
punishment is an irremediable judicial penalty, it is always wrong.

On the Abolition of the Death Penalty

The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the death penalty law in the
Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of human person and human rights. Article II, Section11 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution states:

"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights".

The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines had ratified, guarantees that every human being has
the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The
Congress of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing the death sentence with the
motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid
statute. Statistics, however, show that the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized. Despite the
enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, ore heinous crimes have been committed.
From January to October 1999, the reported cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute,
have substantially increased. Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his second thoughts on the
imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of prisoners in
Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083, introduced by Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by
Representative Roan L. Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act No. 7659. Indeed, the Philippines, known
as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the death penalty law, has returned to the ancient era of Lex
Taliones -" life for a life, tooth for a tooth" a system blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice.
Pope John Paul II, in his "Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25 March 1995, said that modern
society now has all the means of effectively suppressing all crimes by rendering harmless without definitely denying
them the chance to reform. Moreover, the concept of heinous crimes is now limited to grievous offenses like
genocide or international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in danger. The Commission on Human
Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and the execution of the first death sentence of Leo
Echegaray, recommended to the Philippine Senate to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights aiming the Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the abolition of the death
penalty contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and progressive development of human rights. Criminality can
be fought with sincere and effective law enforcement and impartial administration of justice. The said Protocol has
already been ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and territories. It is about time that the Philippines
join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate death penalty in local statutes. The Commission on Human Rights
issues this Human Rights Advisory addressed to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines
for their appropriate action and all the person who value the dignity of the human person and the preservation and
sanctity of life.

THE PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Does the State have the right and authority to impose the capital punishment and put a criminal to death? Advocates
of human rights oppose capital punishment and say it is cruel, inhuman, uncivilized and inconsistent with reason.
The constitution of the Philippines has abolished capital punishment but does not prohibit Congress to impose death
penalty for the heinous crime. Today our legislators have yet to define and rule on what constitutes a heinous crime.
Henry Davis, theologian support the view: God has given to the State the right over life and death as he has given to
everyman the right of self-defense against aggression. This moral power of the State has been universally
acknowledge in Christian tradition. It is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus
22:18); it was recognized in the Roman Polity by Paul (Romans 13:4); for he (the prince) is God's minister to them
for good. But if they do that which is evil; fear; for the beareth not the sword in vain

He therefore declared that every person has the right to live without unjust molestation from the others. Capital
punishment is therefore unnecessary for peace and security of life and property. In his thinking capital punishment is
deterrent so that citizen may live and go about their activities with our molestation. Nonetheless he allows capital
punishment under the following conditions:

The criminal is given due process in the court

The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible punishment.
The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt

Capital Punishment or Death Penalty is a destructive action which needs a special justification, a special pleading.
Capital punishment should never be compared with surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the
extinction of life. Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to justify.
Such that capital punishment for it directly destroy the life of a person, preventing him to make amends and to
change his life. Indeed, it is presumed that the State has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.

Bernard Haring suggest that crimes re the result of socio environmental conditions. He declares as his personal
conviction that the State has no right to uphold the death penalty unless it has done all in time power to give better
education and to care for a more just and humane environment he notes.

Recapituation: there are two probable opinions with Christianity and within the Catholic Church regarding the death
penalty. This author favor to the reimposition of death penalty for heinous crimes and for as long as the conditions
providing for a just and honest trials of criminals are observed strictly Philippines situation indicates that life
imprisonment is not a very promising alternative.

Newspaper Clip: Views on Reimposition Of Death Penalty

The Republic Act No. 7659 also known as the Death Penalty Act has undergone different analysis and
interpretations thus its implementation says will decrease the Philippines crime rate, but it remains unquestionable.

Death Penalty for Graft and Corruption

DELICADEZA: A combination of delicadeza and public opinion led to the withdrawal of Zoe Baird, one of
America's ablest women lawyers, as President Clinton's nominee for attorney general. She was the first woman ever
to be nominated for the position. Reason for withdrawal: She had hired a Peruvian couple who were illegal
immigrants. In the Philippines, delicadeza and public opinion cannot pry everyone who has already been nominated
for a high position out of a job especially if he has already been installed. We seek refuge behind the principle that
one is innocent until proven guilty. This theory leaves no room for either public opinion or delicadeza. We are only
fouled weather democrats.

Death Penalty for Drugs

According to reports in the regional press, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization has urged all ASEAN
member states to impose the death penalty for drug trafficking. At a recent meeting in Kuala, Lumpur, delegates
from five member states, including the Philippines, agreed that trafficking in over 15 grams of heroin or morphine
should be made a capital offense.

Meriam Santiago said the number of crimes committed daily rose to 34.3 percent in 1990, during which there were
5,193 index crimes reported representing what she called a significant increase in crime against property, life and
chastity.

as an immigration commissioner, I was privy to intelligence reports on the activities of global criminal syndicates,
which use the Philippines as the transhipment centers for drugs in Asia. Only the death penalty will deter the
syndicate.
She pointed out that the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, and from that time, police reports show that
an average of two people is killed daily.

In Manila, from the time death penalty was abolished, the criminality rate rose by more than 100 percent. she
said.

Bengson a practicing lawyer, said legislator as representatives of the people should now take heed of their
constituents' voice. He noted that even among churchmen, there is division on weather death penalty is moral.

In the face of such doubt, the people's voice should be the final arbiter, he said.

He noted the near unanimity of law enforcers, prosecutors, justices, and local officials on the necessity of reimposing
the death penalty.

Letters to newspaper editors and phoned-in comments on public affairs radio and television shows popular support
for the death penalty, Bengson added.

He also contested arguments that the state will be just like the criminals if it puts murderers to death.

A Government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible criminals to death will find its citizens at
the mercy of criminals who find nothing wrong with putting innocent people to death, he said.

He added that outlawing or banning the death penalty will be tantamount to giving the wrong signals to criminal
elements.

We'll be saying to them: You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be assured that your own life
is safe because we don't allow the death penalty, he said.

Judge Tirso Velasco, presiding judge of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 88, said his colleagues
acknowledge the need for restoration of the death penalty.
The death penalty should be implemented only according to the gravity of the crime against the person.
The death penalty will prevent more heinous crime.
The reimposition of the death penalty will comply with the biblical principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth.

Judge Maximino Asuncion of RTC Branch 104 said that while he was not sure that the death penalty will reduce
incidence of crime, a majority clamors its reimposition.

Everybody should have their own share of the law, he said

The 1986 Constitution abolished the death penalty, but allowed Congress to reimpose it on certain heinous crimes.

Fourteen of fifteen justices of the Supreme Court, support the reimposition of the death penalty.

The association of Governors, City and Town Mayors and Councilors also favor the restoration of capital
punishment.

A 20,000- strong student organization threatened not to vote and campaign against a Senator who oppose the death
penalty if they seek re-election.
When deposed President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, he ordered a notorious Chinese Drug pusher
executed by musketry under the dangerous drugs law. The execution sent shock waves down drug pushing, addiction
and illegal importation of drugs for their sale was down to a trickle.
The penalty for peddling drug is death in at least six Asian countries. Malaysia showed the way on July 7, 1985.
Death to drug dealers is mandatory in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Singapore. The People's Republic of
China has many times reported execution of drug pusher.

In the United States which is made up of 50 states, only 11 states have abolished capital punishment
namely Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Winconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, New
York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine.

Prof. Ed Garcia, principal author of the provision abolishing the death penalty in the 1987 Constitution, cites an
1989 Amnesty International Study of the use of the death penalty in the Philippines which presents case of studies of
at least eight instances where judicial mistakes had resulted in the death penalty being imposed on innocent
individuals and one case in 1958 where it was carried out and blameless farmer's life snuffled out.

Another useful statistics of study made on the death penalty in the Philippines from 1946-1976 showed that of 63
persons on whom the death penalty was imposed only three came from so called middle class family background
while the rest were from what are referred to as the disadvantages sector.

August 12, 1991 Senators who favor the return of the death penalty are confident they have enough vote to pass the
proposal the next day, but their pro-life colleagues are about to give up the fight.

Summary
This study determined the debates on death penalty referring to moral and judicial control under the Philippine
Government. It further elaborated on the disputes of opinions and facts regarding the unresolved issue rooming
continuously to present times.

Though, it specifically answers the following questions:

What are the revised penal laws indicated for the said capital punishment issue?
What are the biblical oaths in accordance to death penalty offenses?
What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?
What are the arguments for capital punishment and arguments against capital punishment?

Conclusions
Significant and relevant yet argumentative views showed further concerns with the reimposition of capital
punishment. Vehement forms of idealistic battles pertaining to purposive biblical, theoretical, judicial and moral
facts give it's way to the complication and inconsistencies to which laws governing the country are oftenly refined.

Large numbers of politicians were merely in approvement with the reimposition as of the times heinous crimes were
observed frequently during their terms of service and left death penalty as the only option for the hinderance of such
pandemonium in the society and evaluations by other countries as basis for the inactment.

Abolition of Republic Act No. 7659 was much praised because it was proven that capital punishment is not always
succeeding in preventing heinous crimes and will only deprive the country's capability and irredibility towards
authenticity and fairness in judgement. Fundamental right of every human being to life and dignity of human person
and preservation and sanctity of life were highly and truly valued.

Source: http://armageddonviews.weebly.com/blog/death-penalty-moral-and-judicial-debate-under-the-philippine-
government

Sample Debate Arguments:

The death penalty is justified and should be reinstated.The Death penalty is justified because it utilizes the "Eye for
an Eye' concept which means if you deliver the taste of death unto someone,Than the state is in within its full right
to administer the same taste of death back to you.Does it make you better than murderer,of course not,But does that
matter you have administered justice no matter how cold it seems to be.Justice should be impartial,It does not have
feelings,it should not care whether its deceison is popular or not.Rather it concerns it self with what's right,It looks at
the act that has been committed,and takes action to correct the wrong,And stops further crime.Need proof well
according to "A new study from Pepperdine University the study says every inmate who is executed results in 74
fewer deaths the following year"[1].I would also like to add that we should,in fact,instill the concept of the death
penalty to all criminals,if you commit a murder or a gruesome crime,Then you are subject to the ultimate penalty
which is death.
Now,lets look at the economics factors of this issue(Which you brought up) "Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32
billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a
$300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million.
States are spending more money on prisons than education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of
money spent on prisons was increased by 570% while that spent on elementary and secondary education was
increased by only 33%"[2].And with the United States of America having a National Debt of 15 trillion and seeing
its credit rating downgraded, can we honestly afford to house these murderers.With the death penalty reinstated it
would mean a decrease in the Prison population,with The United States of America constructing 200 new jail cells a
day to house those inmates a decrease in the prison population will be greatly appreciated,By the government as well
as the American taxpayer.
It is very true that many people on Death Row may be innocent,but the presumed guilty are given a fair trial
Mandated by our United States Constitution,He is defended to the best of his defences ability,and if found guilty and
sentenced to death,Well that is the direction best thought suited for the presumed guilty man,And if executed and
later his innocence is proven keep in mind that he was thought of as guilty,they didn't just go willy nilly accusing
people of crimes,convicting them,and executing them.He was given due process I will be the First to say that the
administering of justice is not correct 100% of the time,but the attempt is made to correct a wrong,a wrong I may
add that is thought of as inexcusable and severer.But the people that are innocent have the tool of Exoneration and
groups such as The Exoneration Initiative fighting for them and the cause of justice as a whole as well.
Now,to address your figures you say that to house a prisoner it would cost 500,000 oppose to executing a prisoner
which would be according to you cost 2,000,000.Well,from what I understand you prefer life imprisonment over the
death penalty,you provided a figure to the sum of 500,000 but did not specify for what just "for prison' the actual
cost is 1.5 million as I stated in my previous example.You also provided the cost for execution which according to
you is 2,000,000,well again to house an inmate for life is 1.5 million,as you can see the difference in cost is minimal
and seeing that the death penalty is not utilized often.
"In 2008, 37 inmates were executed, 5 fewer than in 2007"[1] the 2,000,000 dollar bill does not come up often.And
now to my final rebuttal,Your suggestion of "housing inmates in a cell with only,gruel and water 3 times a day"
Would be in violation of the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual
punishment.The type of punishment I proposed was formal punishment,a punishment carried out formally under a
system of law,based on the severity and unpleasantness,I proposed death.What you proposed was suffering If you
really are concern with the morality of the Death Penalty and its position in context to justice,Why would you permit
long term suffering?