Death penalty vs Democracy
Over the years of an undying debate on the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Philippines, the House Justice Committee voted on reinstating the latter over a voting of 12-6-1, approve, reject, and abstain respectively, just recently. In the light of this, much is to be said. Ultimately on the constitution’s provision on right to life, its feasibility within the bounds of sustainable development, and on how it will abate the number of crimes in the prevailing context.
To provide a brighter light on the of House Bill Number 1, the bill seeking to reinstate death penalty (Capital Punishment), its provisions include a lengthy list of heinous crimes, and other crimes including Treason; Qualified piracy; Qualified bribery; Parricide Murder; Infanticide; Rape; Kidnapping; and serious illegal detention Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Destructive arson Plunder, and other similar cases that involve illicit drug exploitations.
Although this bill aims to secure the people, reinstating capital punishment will only ignite riots, or on a more serious case, even a civil war. Such is the case of the riot in Cairo, Egypt in 2013 after a judge upheld 21 devastating death sentences. The people furiously rioted the streets, burned buildings, restaurants, and even tried to block the Suez Canal just to make their stand on the decision. Their people strongly held that their lives weren’t for the government to be taken. They are theirs, and only for them to decide on. Similarly, Islamists from Bangladesh rushed their streets fiercely and retaliated against their police by fearlessly bombing them, and striking them blow-by-blow after the leader of the largest Islamist party in their country was sentenced to death due to his committed war-crimes. Although guilt was proven, people still rushed the streets and protested against the decision. This goes to show that people’s fundamental right to life is barriered, should the death penalty be reinstated. Now, say that death penalty is to be reinstated, in what manner should offenders die? Should they be hanged? So, should they be hanged privately, or in public, does this not follow our constitution’s preamble which provides a “just, and HUMANE” society?
Say that reinstating capital punishment comes unimpeded, how will it fit our aim to achieve a sustainable development? In the pool of choices on how we are to execute death sentences, what could be the best way that shall fit sustainable development perfectly? We can never say “Sipain nalang ang upuan” (Hanging) and guffaw the way Sen. Pacquiao did since it is never humane in any form. In the choices, we have both lethal injection, and electric chair left. However, on a not-so-booming country such as ours, we can’t afford to impose either of the two since they are very costly. In California, their taxpayers are paying a mind-blowing $184 million per year just to cover up death sentences. Also, capital punishment trials cost $1.1 million dollars more than life imprisonment cases. Heightened security for inmates with death sentences also chokes up a total cost of $72 million per year. To add up, Kansas have found out that trials capital punishments cost $116, 700 more than that of ordinary murder cases. Similarly, New York Department of Correctional Services has also found out that death penalties will cost states about $118 million per year. Relating this in the Philippine setting, how are we going to muster such amount of money with our limited resources, and even as we are paying our national debts, and as we fund other national services? Now imagine spending money on over 20, 000 illicit drug users in the Philippines annually. It seems blurry in this case. Stopping death penalty’s reinstatement will save $1 billion every 5 to 6 years, and it will give us an easy access to sustainable development since we can focus our funds on social developments.
Although viewed as deterrent to crimes, studies show that capital punishment will not abate the number of crimes. Scientifically, it is found out that people who commit heinous crimes are not in a normal state of mind. According to the research conducted by a professor at Ohio University, "The psychological mindset of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way,". This basically means that death penalty will not deter crimes since offenders do not think of their consequences as they commit crimes. In contrast, not imposing death sentences may even be the best way to deter crime. Such in the case of North Carolina. Police reports show that crime rate in their place deterred ever since no one received death sentences since 2006. Similarly, we could do the same only we could make our justice system more adamant, and more just than it is now.
Summing things up, we can safely assume that the approval of capital punishment from the House Committee on Justice has failed democracy. They failed democracy since they went pro on ferocious riots that shall march the street should the bill gets passed. They failed democracy since they went pro on locking sustainable development away by being willing to spend millions on death sentence trials, and executions. They failed democracy by not giving offenders the chance to change, and by not considering the fact that these offenders are not in their proper state of mind as they commit their offenses. They have failed democracy. They failed to enlighten themselves. They failed us. They failed themselves. Now we, being pathed towards the truth, and reality should educate other people who already failed, and those who are about to fail democracy. Let’s give them the key towards the truth, and together let’s lock away what fails our freedom. OUR DEMOCRACY.
