Post by eric2012 on Dec 24, 2011 3:46:07 GMT -5
Restore Death Penalty in the Philippines
( I am against abortion-the murder of the innocent unborn children but in favor of death penalty to heinous criminals)
By Eric V. Encina
Pasay Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Pedro Corales backed the restoration of the death penalty during a rights dialogue forum in Davao City held in 2005 (http://ccadp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board-news&action=display&thread=3107) of the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty (PDI 12/24/2011)
"Imprisonment is expensive for the state, so the best way to deter criminality is to execute those with death sentences...If you don't execute how long should the state provide and spend for their existence and how sure are we that he ( heinous criminal(s)) would not kill anybody anymore."
DEATH PENALTY?
“TO PRACTICE JUSTICE IS A JOY FOR THE JUST, BUT TERROR FOR EVILDOERS.” – Proverbs 21:15
“HE LOVES JUSTICE AND RIGHT; OF THE KINDNESS OF THE LORD THE EARTH IS FULL.” – Psalms 33:5
Other than that, pestiferous and heinous crimes committed by the Government officials against the people should be put to death penalty as a matter of justice, not for the sake of death, not for the sake of killing, but for the sake of eliminating pestiferous elements in the government and in our society.
For the sake of justice, I am in favor of the restoration of Death Penalty in the Philippines upon the heinous criminals and particularly to those Government officials who have committed heinous crimes against the Filipino people like graft and corruption and electoral sabotage, among other heinous crimes.
Even in the “THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”, alluding specifically to the 5th Commandment, “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) No. 2266: Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, "the death penalty". For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.
The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiration. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medical value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. (Luke 23:40-43).
LEGAL ASPECT OF DEATH PENALTY.
Penalty is the suffering inflicted by the State for the violation of a law.
Our 1987 Constitution in Section 9 (1) Article III of the Bill of Right provides:” Excessive fines not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduce to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychology, or degrading punishment against any prisoner conditions shall be with by law.
Here, we shall emphasize a person’s right against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishments,” which can only be invoked after conviction. (1) As to form: we can say that punishments are cruel and / or inhuman when they involve torture or lingering death, such as burning alive, mutilation, starvation, drowning, and other barbarous forms of punishment.
However, "Death penalty" by hanging, electrocution, or musketry is not considered cruel within the meaning of that word as used in our Constitution. Nor it is inhuman. Destierro or banishment from a certain locality as punishment is neither cruel nor inhuman and so valid. Punishment if degrading when it brings shame and humiliation to the convict, or exposes him/her to contempt or ridicule, or lowers his dignity and self-respect as a human being. (2) As to quantity or duration: punishments greatly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to be shocking to the human conscience would be both cruel and inhuman. This, life imprisonment or even dearth is not cruel nor inhuman when imposed for treason,parricide,murder and other heinous offenses especially when aggravating circumstance attended their commission; but it is cruel and inhuman if imposed for petty crimes like slander or theft of small value. Punishment that is cruel, degrading, or inhuman is prohibited by our Constitution.
Section 19 merely suspended, not abolished, the death penalty. It should not be inflicted unless Congress decides to reinstate it “for compelling reason, involving heinous crimes Philippines in which case it shall apply only to such crimes subsequently committed. Death penalty already imposed when the New Philippines Constitution took effect in 1987 was automatically communed to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
HEINOUS CRIMES. The Philippines Constitutions does not define what “heinous crimes” are but they can be said to cover offense that are exceedingly or flagrantly bad or evil or those committed with extreme cruelty as to shock the general moral sense, such as treason, parricide, drug- trafficking, murder, robbery with homicide, killing a person in stages, etc. especially if the crimes is committed against children or defenseless people. Thus the death penalty has the following arguments:
1. It is not cruel and inhuman because the manner by which it is executed (by electrocution or by lethal injection) does not involve physical or mental pain nor unnecessary physical or mental suffering, and it is imposed only for heinous crimes:
2. It discourages others from committing “heinous crimes” and its abolition will increase the crime rate (Deterrence Theory is based on the argument that “ practically all human beings fear the loss of their lives so that death penalty cannot but have a powerful deterring influence on human conduct);
3. A convict by his own acts has forfeited his right to life and shown his moral incapacity to be rehabilitated and formed;
4. The imposition of death penalty is filled with numerous legal safeguards; and
5. The State has the absolute right to take the life of a person who has proved himself-defense and as an simple and warning to others.
Under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, death penalty may not be imposed in the following cases:
When the guilty person is below 18 years of age when the crime was committed;
When the guilty person is more than 70 years old;
When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the vote of 8 members is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.
JUSTIFICATION FOR DEATH PENALTY:
Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death. In People vs. Carillo, 85 Phil. 611, 635, the convict has proved himself to be a dangerous enemy of society. The death penalty imposed upon him is a warning to others. When we compare this justification with the Thomistic justifications for defense of persons, societies, state, common good, and authority (See above Pars. 2263-2267, page 3), we can formulate a common ground in their justification: all authority is derived ultimately from God. We can safety imply this common ground from a passage in the Gospel of St. John 19:10-11). When Pilate told Jesus, “You won’t talk to me? Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power at all over Me unless it was given to you from above.”
If both civil authority and the Magisterium of the Church justifies legitimate self-defense, defense of persons, communities, and societies in the imposition of death penalty within the bounds prescribed by their respective standards, then I personally give my opinion, individually and professionally, that death penalty can be justified in proper circumstances. I believe that already suggested the different dimension of death penalty.
Eric V. Encina
Filipino Layman For Life, Family and Justice/ Social Crediter/Monetary Reformer
Philippines
eric_encina@yahoo.com
eric.encina8@gmail.com