death penalty

PRO-DEATH PENALTY
FROM PRO-LIFE TO PRO-DEATH? SOTTO WANTS DEATH PENALTY BACK
By ANDREO CALONZO,GMA NewsJanuary 28, 2014 1:39pm
(Updated 3:48 p.m.) Over a year after taking a pro-life stance against the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Law, Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III is pushing for the revival of death penalty in the Philippines.
In Senate Bill 2080, Sotto cited the “influx of heinous crimes... in the country nowadays” and the “indiscriminate and horrendouse brutality happening everywhere” to justify the reinstatement of death penalty.
Sotto said the imposition of life imprisonment was a “non-deterrent against criminality.” His measure is particularly pushing for the revival of death by lethal injection for those found guilty of heinous crimes.
When asked on Tuesday if his proposed law will conflict with his pro-life stance, Sotto texted, “Nope. That's different. I am pro-life for the unborn and the Filipino family. I am pro-death to heinous criminals.”
“Ang layo, di ba? I'm not pro-life for heinous criminals?” he added.
In 2006, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo approved the commutation to life imprisonment of death row convicts, and eventually signed a law abolishing the death penalty.
Sotto was among the senators who staunchly opposed the RH Law, which was enacted in December 2012.
The implementation of the RH Law, however, was halted by the Supreme Court pending legal questions on the legislation.

Speech

The present situation of the Philippines now is that the country is obviously suffering from poverty. Addition to this, Philippines’ crime rate is still high.
With these issues that devastates the country today, death penalty can be a solution. If death penalty shall be implemented once again in the country, crime rates will possibly decrease. For this can somehow “discourage” criminals to kill because fear will be instill in their minds, that is if they still have fear.
Since death penalty can lessen criminals, the population of the Philippines will decrease as well. This is an advantage because the current situation of the country is still under the line of overpopulation.
Lifetime imprisonment does not only waste the government’s money for their food and security rather shall impose to the countrymen that the government is serious about the number of crimes happening in the country. Justice, as we know, can be bought in the Philippines. It is always unfair when a rich criminal is imprisoned than a marginalized criminal forced to did such action because of poverty. Death penalty can erase this gap.
The criminals does not only ruin their own reputation but also of the place they came from. Take for example the Maguindanao massacre, are the Ampatuans the only feared of the people or even the place itself? Thus, these killers of the society pollutes the image of the place they came from.
Punishment shall be imposed to the criminals with high record in the government. However, this does not include those people who have killed only an individual. This can apply to grave massacres, or related crimes.
When death penalty will be impose in the country, the possibility that the freed criminals can kill another person be lessen. Let us not forget that the four walls of religion do not only make who we are. It is only a part of our life. The best for the society shall be implemented in whatever ways.

One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime.

Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.

Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the consequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force!