Disclaimer: The following article expresses my personal views on the death penalty and does not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com. It was also originally published in my blog.
* * * * *
I remember a scene from The Practice where Eugene Young, a defense attorney, was being interviewed by the Governor’s Judicial Council for the position of superior court judge. They wanted to know his stand on the death penalty.
Council Member: I can see your firm has handled several capital cases out of state, each time taking a position against the death penalty.
Eugene Young: Uh, we’re a defense firm. Our clients tend to disfavor being executed.
Council Member: Fair enough, but as a judge, would you impose the death penalty, should it ever become law in this state?
Eugene Young: No.
Council Member: Why not?
Eugene Young: One—I consider human life to be intrinsically sacred, and I do not believe the state should engage in the systemized taking of human life. Two—Our judicial system is flawed. We wrongly convict over 10,000 people a year, some of whom are sentenced to die. Now, you can always release an exonerated man from prison, but bringin’ him back from death has proven to be trickier. DNA has already cleared a hundred men, many on death row. Clearly, something isn’t working.
Another Council Member: And what would you say, Mr. Young, to the mother whose five-year-old daughter has been raped and murdered?
Eugene Young (after a long reflective pause): I would say, if it were my daughter, I’d like to kill whoever did it myself. And if I ever came face-to-face with the guy, I couldn’t guarantee any of you that I wouldn’t kill him. But if I did, it would be wrong. And for the State to kill reflectively, absent emotion, on ceremony, it is not right.
It appears that Eugene Young has implicitly differentiated homicidal rage over the rape and murder of one’s own child – from cold-blooded execution; the former being the spontaneous and emotional response of a seriously aggrieved parent, the latter being the considered and systemized, even ceremonial, act of the State after careful reflection, and without emotion. Although he condemns both as wrong, one is definitely a more sinister and graver ill than the other, because while a helpless grieving parent may have little to no control over his or her actions, the State, with all its resources and power to take away liberty and property, is expected to be more circumspect when it comes to taking away life.
And this is expressed best in an oft-repeated motto in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever:
Do not hurt when holding is enough Do not wound when hurting is enough Do not maim when wounding is enough And kill not when maiming is enough.
Actually, the foundations of their cases are pretty similar, based on the laws involving first degree murder. If you willfully kill someone, and you are of sound mind while doing so, then you are guilty of first degree and eligible for execution. It does not matter that one is a known criminal and one was a maid. The law is sortof objective like that.
The state keeps these people alive because, as I pointed out, the accused was able to walk on technicalities / threatening the witnesses. Not because death penalty currently does not exist in our legal system.
[The state keeps these people alive because, as I pointed out, the accused was able to walk on technicalities / threatening the witnesses. Not because death penalty currently does not exist in our legal system. ]
Point taken, and it's in cases like this that vigilantes sound less like an extreme case of citizens taking the law into their hands, and more like the only sensible way of keeping these monsters off our streets. Permanently.
But I'm digressing – I just needed to vent that.
I remember at least one count of vigilantism taking place here in Manila – unknown men caught a cop and tied him to a pole after roughing him up, if I remember it right. But it happened many years ago.
We have over 7,000 islands in RP – why the fuck can't we just dump the heinous offenders on one of them, wall it off, issue each of them a spork, and tell them to survive?
Because I would assume that the islands big enough already have people living in them, and would not think favorably of you dumping criminals in their area just because you yourself don't live there.
And the islands too small for people to be thriving there would not accommodate all the criminals we'd be putting in there. Pretty soon there will be far too many islands full of criminals. Maybe the people behind the Pilipinas Kay Ganda can incorporate that into their tourism campaign, too.
Would it kill you to realize I was kidding?
Somebody clearly hasn't seen "Escape from L.A." or "Battle Royale" 🙁
My apologies for not having watched the same movies that you have, as it seems you expect everyone else to do. 🙂
Although if you had mentioned "wall it off, issue each of them a spork, and tell them to FIGHT EACH OTHER TO survive", then I'd probably have gotten it. Ambiguous statement is ambiguous.
Dude, would anybody seriously issue anyone Sporks as a deadly weapon? XD
Bah. Nobody appreciates tongue-in-cheek humor anymore 🙁
You posed a hypothetical question that merits some answering, spork or not.
Because, really, That didn't sound like humor to me.
oh wow, we could have our very own Australia 🙂
… or we could dump them straight into MILF territory… then hand them a spork, they'd be shot outright for smuggling spork into islamic territory, heard those guys hate pork and all its variations 🙂
… or turn the Spratlys into a squatter penal colony. pretty soon the place will be so run-down and polluted that other countries will let go of their claims out of sheer disgust.
As a close relative of a kidnap victim, I am unabashedly pro-death.
My reasoning is simple: The people who were responsible for the crime against us and many others (Just ask Teresita Ang-See) are repeat offenders who have been in and out of jail for years, despite the evidence levelled against them, either due to technicalities, or the simple fact that they simply escaped, or some sick fuck paid for their bail.
You claim it is morally wrong for the state to impose death on criminals.
But from what I have seen and experienced, it is far worse to let these criminals get away repeatedly, destroying one innocent life after another, just because of some moral qualm that will guarantee these motherfuckers will never hurt anybody else again.
I know this is an emotionally charged argument, and it's certainly going to be shot to shreds with some sensible reasoning, but I'm simply illustrating to anybody reading this the reality of the situation for us victims – where is your sympathy for us?
What guarantee do you have that not executing these monsters will somehow keep them from going after us again?
After our relative was returned, we had received a phone call from the kidnapper telling us they'd leave us alone, if we'd tell the police not to have them hunted down. I would know, because it has happened to our family.
And I am telling you that from where I stand, death penalties are better option for me and other victims than having to see another of these convicts walk. These are hardened criminals. The longer you keep them in jail, the more time you give them to plot their escape, if not pass on their knowledge, if not hire more goons when they do get out.
[just because of some moral qualm that will guarantee these motherfuckers will never hurt anybody else again. ]
Typo. It was supposed to say:
just because of somebody had moral qualm that prevents them from ensuring that these these motherfuckers will never hurt anybody else again.
I certainly agree that some people are beyond rehabilitation. However, I don't think that killing them would discourage other psychos from emulating their life choices. If our legal system cannot try these hardened criminals with simple jail time, it will have a much more difficult time dealing with the technicalities involved with death penalties. In fact, the appeals system takes a much greater toll on taxpayers than simply putting away criminals for life (thus removing them from society).
The real problem with the death penalty is that it is a statistical inevitability that at least one innocent man will be murdered by the state. That, and perhaps the negligible evidence showing that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for grave crimes and repeat offenders.
The Innocence Project has, to date, helped in the exoneration of over 250 wrongly convicted people, some of them were just days from execution. That's in the United States where the collection of DNA evidence has been standard procedure. I have yet to hear of any similar situation of exoneration here in the Philippines, and I am sure many are rotting away in jail who could have been easily set free by DNA evidence.
Instead, I think what we need is a better analysis of the penal system and the psychology of criminals. We should learn what incentives are best to deter people, whose rational faculties are clearly disturbed, from these kinds of choices. What social policies diminish violent crimes? How can our legal system address recidivism? What genetic or environmental variables predispose certain people toward violent behavior?
As for the victims, I can't even imagine the horror you and other people have gone through. My suggestions must seem so cold and removed from the reality of the suffering caused by these truly evil people. But, just like how the promise of heaven or hell can't ever justify the horrors apparently done by Yahweh, vengeance won't ever return the time and the lives wasted by crime and violence.
[But, just like how the promise of heaven or hell can't ever justify the horrors apparently done by Yahweh, vengeance won't ever return the time and the lives wasted by crime and violence. ]
Garrick, to put my predicament in a better perspective, the kidnapper who grabbed said relative was guilty of at least seven other cases in the past. Every time was caught, he was released due to technicalities, or witnesses the showing up (who I found out were threatened).
While I will agree that we need long-term solutions to ensure that only those truly guilty will be the ones who get thrown in the slammer, I also know that in the absence of a decent legal system to put this son-of-a-bitch behind bars for good (he was reportedly connected to several highly placed politicians), honestly, putting a bullet to his temple is the next best thing.
I admit this is emotional for me, but I ask you – if the man is a repeat offender, and shows no remorse over kidnapping, or even murdering his victims, would you in good conscience really just leave them in one of our prisons? To help illustrate my point further
http://www.transparency-ph.org/knowledge-center/1…
Of course in the cases where people are unfairly jailed, they have my sympathies, but in the specific case I mention, where a man has been found to be guilty of heinous crimes not exclusive to rape, premeditated murder, or kidnappings, and have been repeaet offenders, I don't see the point of wasting my tax money just to feed and clothe them.
[in the absence of a decent legal system to put this son-of-a-bitch behind bars for good (he was reportedly connected to several highly placed politicians), honestly, putting a bullet to his temple is the next best thing.]
Are you talking about the death penalty or vigilante-style execution? Because if our legal system cannot put that son-of-a-bitch behind bars, how much more unlikely can we put him on death row?
If you're referring to my most sincere opinion, I'd rather the police just shoot the pricks responsible, and save us the legal headaches. Draconian, yes, but from what I've seen, I have gotten very, very tired of watching criminals walk because of some sleazebag lawyer.
But to clarify my stance, yes, I meant it in the sense of executions. Putting a bullet to the criminals head is far less expensive than electrocuting, gassing, or having them injected with poison.
Your taxes are much more wasted on the trials and appeals that are involved with the safety nets and legal hurdles that protect against wrongful execution (and even then they fail much too often). However, I honestly think that the death penalty, even if perfectly applied, is too good for scum bags like them. They should rot in prison, fully conscious of their situation.
[They should rot in prison, fully conscious of their situation. ]
Assuming that these scumbags will even have guilt, Garrick.
Kidnapping is not a crime of passion – it takes months of preparation to pull off, nevermind the nerve needed to torture your fellow human being just for cash.
I don't advocate incarceration to promote remorse in criminals. They are clearly incapable of it. Besides, their sorrow for their crimes do not make up for the wrongs that they did, hence my hell analogy (which goes to show how infantile and morally retrograde that doctrine is). But, knowing that you are locked up for the rest of your life is a lot worse than getting to die early and be freed of the torment of being trapped like a rat. That, I would think, is a better deterrent against crime.
As for recruiting in prisons, again, studies of recidivism and enacting policies against it would solve that. Also, certain grave crimes and unrepentant attitudes should bar convicts from mingling with the general prison population and have increased visitation restrictions.
If our society provided fulfilling environments for people to work and live in, we wouldn't need to worry about people turning to a life of crime, unless they're psychopaths or criminally insane, in which case, a better understanding of psychology will allow us to nip these situations in the bud. Many of these mental disorders show up in childhood. Because human behavior is reducible to events in the brain, to solve crime, we need better mental health care.
[Twin-Skies: it is far worse to let these criminals get away repeatedly, destroying one innocent life after another, just because somebody had moral qualm that prevents them from ensuring that these motherfuckers will never hurt anybody else again.]
I agree. I have to admit that this article is more on the theoretical aspect of the issue. Like the motto I quoted from The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, "do not hurt (or wound or maim or kill) if holding is enough". Perhaps we can equate "holding" with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but in the example you gave the "holding" was clearly not enough since the criminals got away.
I also sympathize with you and share your anger towards these criminals. But you and me are real people with human emotions and we react humanly when aggrieved. The State, however, is an institution, and for it to kill reflectively is not the same as an aggrieved person seeking vengeance.
Just to clarify, I only condone death in cases where the perpetrator has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of a crime.
[The State, however, is an institution, and for it to kill reflectively is not the same as an aggrieved person seeking vengeance. ]
The State is also mandated for looking out for the welfare of its citizens.
And given the sorry state of our prisons and how easily high-profile criminals can escape them (Al Ghozi ring a bell?), can i really trust them to ensure that these crooks will not go after those of us who had them landed in jail should they ever get out?
All cases involving first degree murders that involve the death penalty are ALWAYS found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's what the defense always stresses – that it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before the suspect can be convicted.
And yet many of these cases, when successfully appealed, have shown that the accused was actually innocent of the crime, due to new DNA technologies, finding the actual killer, etc.
It doesn't make sense to say that only people everyone knows is guilty should be given the death penalty. Opinion is subjective and has a great chance of being wrong, no matter how much you think your opinion is right. That's what being subjective means.
The problem with justice is that it must be blind to be fair – it does not single out people for heavier punishment because of their personality or history. People who meet the criteria for first degree murder are charged with the death penalty, such as Ampatuan and Flor Contemplacion several years back. Flor was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and everyone believes Ampatuan is. You might say that Ampatuan really is, but can you say the same thing about Flor? After all, almost all the Singaporeans believe that she is guilty just as much as people here believe Ampatuan is.
And on a related note, I am framing my opinion strictly on the matter of kidnappings. 1st degree murders are not something I'm to familiar with, so I can't say much about it.
By kidnapping do you mean that your relative survived the ordeal?
No law would call for the death penalty on the accused if the victim in question is still alive. Rather harsh thing to say, but it is a fact.
[No law would call for the death penalty on the accused if the victim in question is still alive. Rather harsh thing to say, but it is a fact. ]
What is also fact is that these kidnap groups are repeat offenders – as long as their ringleader is alive and at large, they will always find more targets. As I said, this man alone was already responsible for roughly seven kidnappings in the past, and sadly, one of them ended in the victim's death.
Then he should be processed for one count of first degree murder, and several counts of kidnapping. Without that death though, the most he can get is life without parole, especially for repeat offenders.
Unfortunately again, "repeat offender" only holds true if he was actually convicted.
Believe me, if I came face to face with the general who killed my friend, or any one who killed a loved one, I cannot say I wouldn't kill them if I had the opportunity to, in the same way the character Eugene Young states. More than that, I won't say I won't torture them, either, because I'm a nice person like that.
But I know enough to also state that taking my rage and my anger and my frustration, dumping it into the judicial system and saying it should be part of the law and should be applicable to all, is wrong. Personal revenge is a different matter, but to push it as law simply to nurse a personal hurt, is wrong – especially when clouded by our personal biases.
[Then he should be processed for one count of first degree murder, and several counts of kidnapping. Without that death though, the most he can get is life without parole, especially for repeat offenders. ]
And he will escape, or walk. Remember the case of Rolito Go?
http://www.thepoc.net/breaking-news/politics/538-…
So by your own admission, you would rather have the death penalty so that the criminals responsible for your relatives kidnapping can be killed despite the fact that an innocent man, due to the flaws in the justice system, may also be executed? This is pretty much an admission that you don't care if any other innocent gets thrown to the wolves, as long as the criminal responsible for the kidnapping gets his just desserts.
Here's the thing about the the previous arrests of your criminal. If he was let go due to technicalities or because witnesses did not show up, then whether or not the death penalty is implemented makes no difference. If it's legalized, you can arrest him and have the prosecutor gun for the death penalty, but if witnesses don't show up anyway, or if the same technicalities exist, then they're going to let him go regardless of whether or not the death penalty is a part of the due process of law.
Reform the justice system first, make sure that it works to the point where witnesses cannot be cowed, or that these technicalities can be circumvented. Then let's agree to go back to the death penalty issue.
Unlike you, I had a friend who was killed by a military officer. Your criminal, if convicted, will probably not have enough money to pay off judges and politicians to get out of his execution. The military officer does, and can. Death penalty is meaningless if the system and the people who claims to be serving justice is also corrupt.
[Unlike you, I had a friend who was killed by a military officer. Your criminal, if convicted, will probably not have enough money to pay off judges and politicians to get out of his execution. The military officer does, and can. Death penalty is meaningless if the system and the people who claims to be serving justice is also corrupt. ]
I already mention said kidnapper was connected to several politicos, Teagan – the fact that he's slipped away more than one is testament to this fact; PACER further confirmed this, but were unwilling to say anything else due to their pending investigations.
Honestly, I am sorely tempted to wish that these people would just wind up dead – it would save everybody the trouble of some long-drawn out trial, and the hundreds of thousands of pesos in legal expenses it all entails, only to have some sleazebag lawyer get these pricks out on a technicality.
Call it Draconian if you wish, but IMHO, if our justice system is in the crapper, this works better for me.
Then it is not the absence of the death penalty that does not make the justice system work; it is the absence of good laws and enforcers in the justice system that prevents it from working.
You already mention that this is a Draconian want; now, if you are willing to kill the accused this way for enforcing this Draconian concept on all other accused despite knowing the justice system is flawed, despite knowing that the other accused may be innocent – well then, that sortof makes you technically guilty of murder too, don't you think?
Maybe we ought to try to fix the justice system first instead of running around injecting things or shooting bullets into people, yes?
[Maybe we ought to try to fix the justice system first instead of running around injecting things or shooting bullets into people, yes? ]
A bitter pill to swallow, but you are right. However, that won't stop me from personally enjoying every news i hear of the next kidnapper getting gunned down by the police.
Personally, I disagree with imposing the death penalty, mainly because of a question which pops out of my mind which is "Who gets to decide who to kill and who to spare?". I have problems with government officials who can't even have a decent stance on most issues plaguing our system handling the lives of people, innocent or otherwise. IMO we should just try to shape up the prisons here, I've seen the prisons here in Davao and it is, in all sense of the word, shitty… Not to mention the dozens of policemen here with beer bellies, I can't imagine how they would catch up to a simple snatcher with 10-20 lbs. of dead weight hanging on them like sandbags.
Anyway, haven't we learned from the mistakes of the past? That imposing the death penalty doesn't exactly equate to lower crime rates. Death is too much of an easy escape for both the innocent and convicted.