Lenard Elmo M.
Ilagan BSCS – 2A CORE110 – MWF0730-0850
Death Penalty: Legal, yes. Moral?
I. Introduction
Death Penalty, also called as Capital Punishment, execution of an offender sentenced to
death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. The term Death Penalty and Capital
Punishment is seldom interchanged, though imposition of the penalty is not always followed by
execution, even when it is upheld in appeals, because of commutation to life imprisonment. In
ancient times in Greece, under the laws of Draco (7th Century BCE), the death penalty is given to
the most heinous of crimes, these being: murder, treason, arson, and rape, though Plato argued that
it should only be used for the incorrigible. The prevalence of the capital punishment is difficult to
ascertain precisely, but it seems likely that is often avoided, sometimes by an alternative (in recent
times, reclusion perpetua), and often times, banishment, and sometimes by paying of compensation.
In a more civil manner, in the late 8th century to the early 12th century, Japanese Heian Emperor
commuted every death sentence and replace it with deportation to a remote area.
Not only according to history does the human race have practiced and applied the death
penalty, as well as according to the bible, “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be
shed.” As according to Genesis 9:6. And with these, exploring the nature and purpose of this
punishment is not that hard any longer; hence the questions that can be asked are: 1. What crimes
are being and can be given the Capital Punishment? 2. Is it moral and right on behalf of the victim
and the suspect? Through these questions, and knowing the facts and argumentations, shall the gap
close and provide a clear and concrete answer if the death penalty is moral or not.
II. Content
According to the argumentation of Fajardo (N.D), there are points that have been stated that
the death penalty is not practicable in the Philippines; there being three main points to her
statement, those being:
1. “Death penalty is not a proven deterrent to future murders.”
2. “There is always a possibility of condemning a person to death.”
3. “The state has no right to deprive the person of his life, God is the giver of life
and only He can take it.”
With these in her statement, we can also look into the details of each one, the first point
being provided by case studies that support the statement that death penalty does not deter the
overall crime rate, especially in murder, one study being according to the Criminologists of William
Bowers of Northeastern University, “society is brutalized by the use of death penalty and this
increases the ritual hood of murder. 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.
In the second point, 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. 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 can’t
afford to pay competent lawyers (April 1994).
Richard Ong – 33, innocent who was sentenced to death in (December 1994) August 1996. He was
tortured and confessed something which he didn’t do.
Hideshi Suzuki – 38, Japanese man sentenced to death in December 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.
In another argument, it is stated that Murder is only justified in the event of self
defense, that there are no other possible ways to neutralize the criminal other than to kill him/her. It
was stated as, the act of murder is always wrong except if it is used as a reasonable form of self-
defense. In other words, if the only way for a person to adequately defend their person or others
around them requires killing the perpetrator, by definition, it is murder. However, in this
circumstance, the intentional killing of another person is necessary, and thus justified in this
situation. Furthermore, capital punishment is the intentional killing of another human being.
Therefore, capital punishment is immoral in any circumstance outside of self-defense. Also, in the
same argument, it was stated some certain circumstances where the capital punishment is ethically
permissible - a situation in which law enforcement cannot adequately assure that a person will be
prevented from committing further murders. This would be relevant in countries that do not have
the financial and technological means which are available in the United States. There are very few
circumstances that arise in the United States when the death penalty would be required for this
reason. The next circumstance is something that could be a catalyst to a larger threat, the example
being the Bin-Laden murder. Bin-Laden was the infamous leader of a terrorist group, in which his
followers are faithful to him. During the attack, they had to “put him down” because they sought
that giving him life imprisonment would only incite in his followers to help him escape and would
lead to stir up even more deaths and cruelty, hence it being considered as self-defense. (Juricic.
2017).
On another view, argumentations have been made to claim that they approve to the implementation
of the capital punishment. There are guide questions to be presented as well as some statements:
1. Is the death penalty immoral?
Semon Frank Thompson, Jr., former Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, stated
the following in his Sep. 15, 2016 article "What I Learned from Executing Two Men," available at
nytimes.com: "As superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, I planned and carried out that
state's only two executions in the last 54 years I used to support the death penalty. I don't anymore...
I was charged with executing two inmates on the penitentiary’' death row, Douglas Franklin Wright
and Harry Charles Moore...
Regardless of their crimes, the fact that I was now to be personally involved in their executions
forced me into a deeper reckoning with my feelings about capital punishment. After much
contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level, life was either hallowed or it wasn't. And
I wanted it to be...
America should no longer accept the myth that capital punishment plays any constructive role in our
criminal justice system. It will be hard to bring an end to the death penalty, but we will be a healthier
society as a result."
Edward Feser, PhD, and Joseph M. Bessette, PhD, Alice Tweed Tuohy, stated the following
in their July 21, 2016 article "Why the Death Penalty Is Still Necessary," available at The Catholic
World Report website:
"We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most
brutal and conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of state-run lottery
that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all those convicted of
murder. Rather, the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst...
Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do
justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate
to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims
understand this essential point...
Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death penalty] promotes belief in and respect
for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and
supports that moral order."
2. Does the death penalty deter crime?
David Muhlhausen, PhD, "Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand
strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this
principle as just...
Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring
crime. But... the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or
counties find a deterrent effect.
John J. Donohue III, JD, PhD, Professor of Law at Stanford University, "[T]here is not the
slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide.
Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the US when only the
latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that
retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s
and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital
punishment on crime.
III. Conclusion.
With the facts being presented, and the questions being answered, I firmly believe that the
death penalty can still be practiced to this day. The cases that can receive the capital punishment
being: murder, rape, treason and other heinous crimes that have gravely affected the lives of the
victim. Under the circumstance that the person involved (accused) is not under any psychological
disorder, is fully aware of what is being done, has made plans prior to the act. During trial, the case
can still be commuted to a lifetime incarceration if there are discrepancies in finding the defendant
fully guilty of the act. As well as according to the Kantian deontological ethics, dealing with the
“duty” of an individual. If he/she had taken something, he/she is now given the duty to repay that
taken item – be it an object, value of a person, the dignity, life, etc. As well as the old Babylonian
rule, the code of Hammurabi, explaining the Lex Talionis, what you have taken from others, others
will take it from you.
Bibliography
“Death Penalty in the Philippines” Mary Antoinette Fajardo,
https://www.academia.edu/4739278/Death-Penalty-in-the-Philippines
“Death Penalty, Good or Bad” John Gabor,
https://www.academia.edu/37905145/Death_Penalty_Good_or_Not.docx
“Acceptability of Death Penalty” J. Muriithi Muriuki,
https://www.academia.edu/12672082/ACCEPTABILITY_OF_THE_DEATH_PENALTY
“Is death penalty really immoral?”
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001038
“Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?”
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983
“Philosophy Death Penalty Paper” Leah Juricic
https://www.academia.edu/37974884/Philosophy_Death_Penalty_Paper.docx
