Position paper about death penalty, Essays (high school) of English

Download Position paper about death penalty and more Essays (high school) English in PDF only on Docsity! Death Penalty in the Philippines Introduction The death penalty is a type of capital punishment that refers to the execution of a person who has been found guilty of committing capital crimes or offenses by the government. The death penalty in the Philippines is specified on Republic Act No. 7659, which is an act to impose the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, amending for that purpose the revised penal statutes, as modified, other special penal laws, and for other objectives. It was also imposed by the Spanish on natives who revolted against them, and it was kept during the American period. Martial Law was in effect from 1965 until 1986, even if it was repealed during Cory Aquino's term. It was reestablished when Ramos took over as president. It was also present during the terms of Estrada and Arroyo. This article discusses the pros and cons of the death penalty in the Philippines. While the death penalty is necessary to reduce the number of people who commit serious crimes, the death penalty violates the right to life. Counter Arguments Years of deterrence research have revealed that the death penalty is no more deterrent than a life sentence in jail. In fact, some criminologists believe that the death penalty has the opposite effect; that it brutalizes society, increasing the possibility of additional murder. Because society has a vested interest in avoiding murder, the death penalty should be used to deter murder. Potential murderers will think twice about killing if murderers are sentenced to death and executed. Retribution is a synonym for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict quick harm on someone who wrongs us, mature society demands a more measured response. The emotional desire for vengeance is not a sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher ideals that exhibit a complete regard for life, including the life of a murderer. Encouraging our most base reasons for vengeance, which results in another death, only serves to prolong the chain of violence. The concept of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a straightforward one that our culture has never accepted. When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is thrown off. Unless and until that equilibrium is restored, society will fall to a regime of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s Life restores the equilibrium and allows society to demonstrate persuasively that murder is an abhorrent crime that will be punished in kind. Religious ideals have historically underpinned retribution. Maintained that it is right to take a "eye for an eye" and a life. Offenders deserve the worst. There is no proof that any innocent person has been killed since greater protections and appeals were established to our death sentence system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are extremely rare. Innocent people are imprisoned. Even if such executions have taken place, they are extremely unusual. Innocent individuals being imprisoned is likewise terrible, but we cannot empty the prisons because of the small risk. If modifications to the representation system or the utilization of scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, are required, those reforms should be implemented. The necessity for reform, however, is not an argument for abolishing the death sentence. Furthermore, many of the claims of innocence made by persons released from execution row are based on legal technicalities. The death penalty is an irreversible sentence. If a convict is executed, there is nothing that can be done to make apologies. There is substantial evidence that many errors in condemning persons to death have occurred. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence was discovered. For every eight people executed, we