Babe's Eye View article

The brutal execution of bank employees and the mass massacre in Laguna has raised fears about rising criminality in the country, triggering calls for the restoration of the death penalty. In fact, I saw Migs Zubiri last Thursday at the official dinner in Malacañang for the Thai Prime Minister.

Migs is one of the senators pushing for the return of the death penalty, but only for heinous crimes like multiple murder. It can be recalled that in April 2006, GMA "mass commuted" the death sentence imposed on more than 1,200 death row convicts. This was followed by the repeal of the death penalty law in December 2006 much to the dismay of the relatives of heinous crime victims who felt they were deprived of the "legal weapon" to penalize criminals who have taken the lives of their loved ones.

Capital punishment has always been a contentious and emotional issue not only in the Philippines but in many parts of the world, including the United States. Last month, the US Supreme Court had to rule on the constitutionality of using lethal injection as a means to administer capital punishment, and imposed an unofficial moratorium on the death penalty pending an appeal by two death row inmates. But last Wednesday, a man convicted of beating a 56-year-old woman to death in 1988 was executed in Mississippi.

People who oppose capital punishment say it has not been proven as an effective deterrent to crime, and that it represents the "pointless and needless extinction of life." Human rights groups also point out that it is the "ultimate denial of human rights," a cruel punishment which discriminates against the poor and promotes a "culture of violence."

On the other hand, there are those who say the abolition of the death penalty could force families of victims to take the law into their own hands, in effect, promoting this "culture of violence" that anti-death penalty advocates are talking about.

Even our Justice Secretary commented that if it were left to him, he would issue a shoot-to-kill order against the suspects in the hideous bank robbery in Laguna, even as he says the spate of sensational crimes does not yet justify the re-imposition of capital punishment.

True, the objective of the law is to rehabilitate criminals and turn them into productive members of society. But whether we like it or not, there are crimes that are simply so outrageous and repugnant that they merit the death penalty.

Just a few days ago, a one-year-old child was beaten to death by his stepfather. Scan the tabloids and you would read stories about a young girl repeatedly abused by her father, stepfather or some other relative; a drug-crazed son beating his mother to death because she refused to give him money; a kidnap-for-ransom gang victimizing another family; terrorist groups setting buses on fire or planting bombs in some town.

As England's Lord Justice Denning said, "Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing...It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else...The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."

While no concrete Philippine statistics is available to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime, it is interesting what Texas A&M University researchers came up with: in 1960, there were 9,140 murders with 56 executions carried out. With 15 executions in 1964, the number of murders rose to 9,250.

In 1969, when no executions were carried out, murders shot up to 14,590. And during the suspension of capital punishment from 1972 to 1976, more than 20,000 murders were committed, the number going up to 23,000 after only two executions since 1976. One compelling example pro-death penalty advocates point out is that of Rosa Velez, who was shot to death by a burglar who later admitted he shot her because he knew he "wouldn't get the chair."

Relatives of crime victims lament the fact that human rights groups seem more concerned about the rights of convicted criminals while the grieving relatives are left behind to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.

As for the argument that the wrong man might end up getting convicted, still, government has no right to place this burden on the victims. On the contrary, this should goad authorities to strengthen our criminal justice system.

As pointed out by John McAdams, a political science professor at Harvard University, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former."

In 2006, GMA repealed the death penalty as a "gift" to Pope Benedict XVI. But I clearly remember, how in 2003, when she reversed an order suspending capital punishment, she said that much as she is averse to the taking of human lives through the death penalty, "the president must yield to the higher public interest when dictated by extraordinary circumstances. It is time for me to take a stand for the people." At the time, there was a rise in kidnappings and other heinous crimes.

In the wake of the brutal murders the whole nation has witnessed, people are wondering if indeed, we are approaching such "extraordinary circumstances." Today, many are beginning to seriously ask: Is it time to bring back the death penalty?"