The death penalty dies a natural death

The long time attempts to revive the death penalty in the country was given a glimmer of hope in the lower house as the House of Representatives managed to get a bare majority through on the second reading of the bill. However, the said bill died a natural death in the upper house as the Senate failed to unite with a single voice for its revival.

There is no need to reiterate the long debated issues on the morality (or the lack of it) of the death penalty, human rights, the right to life, and the list goes on of the repeated arguments to trample the most brutal form of capital punishment. Nor is there a need to dwell on the emotionally charged arguments raised by human rights victims and their advocates, the main theme pointing to the ease of fighting for the rights of criminals until you, or someone close to you, become one of their victims.

What is seriously wrong with the Philippine version of the death penalty is its focus on drug related crimes, at the neglect of all other heinous crimes plaguing the nation. The drafted bill that made it past the lower house was clearly an attempt to validate the controversial extrajudicial killings which have made the current administration notoriously popular with the international community.

Laws should be based on reason and they should be made to address long term problems of the whole nation – and not just to satisfy the whims of a current administration. Laws should not single out a certain category of crimes when there are other crimes equally deserving of the same penalty.

The death penalty is not wrong per se – there is just something wrong with the Philippine version.

 
REFERENCES:

http://www.philstar.com/news-feature/2017/05/12/1699242/where-nations-stand-ejks-death-penalty-philippines

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/03/12/1680336/senate-asked-dump-death-penalty-revival

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/868760/8-senators-express-opposition-to-death-penalty

RELATED ARTICLES:

The possible rebirth of the death penalty
https://aml1205.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/the-possible-rebirth-of-the-death-penalty/

Reciprocal death penalty
https://aml1205.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/reciprocal-death-penalty/

Justice, Davao Death Squad style
https://aml1205.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/justice-davao-death-squad-style/

The Never Ending Story of the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Debate

(an article inspired by the book titled Unplanned by Abby Johnson)

This was a book that chronicled the journey of activist Abby Johnson from being a volunteer for a pro-choice establishment called Planned Parenthood, to crossing over to the pro-lifers under an establishment known as Coalition for Life. The book had a spiritual aspect as Abby Johnson highlighted the events reflecting the hand of God in aid of her transformation. This article aims to focus on the more disturbing implications of her journey that pushed her from one side to the other.

At the beginning, Planned Parenthood’s pro-choice stand was simply to decrease the number of abortions through education on contraceptives and the choice of adoption. The establishment stood on the premise that, if women wanted the option to abort, it would be better to give them the means to do so safely. The establishment clung to the argument that providing safe abortions was a better alternative to condemning women from wanting an abortion and compelling them to resort to underground, unsafe, and maybe even illegal, means to get an abortion anyway. But as Planned Parenthood was a charitable institution, it relied on the funding of supporters and the government. It only charged women what they could afford to pay.

Eventually, the birth control and abortion demands outweighed the public support the establishment could elicit, and funds started to run dry. As the establishment was profiting from the few abortions performed, it geared towards a new goal of not only increasing the number of abortions to be performed, but directing women towards the option. Abby Johnson’s journey towards the Coalition for Life started when her assistance was needed in an actual abortion, and she saw first hand how a fetus was, body part by body part, sucked out of a womb.

The book leads to a realization of how complicated the pro-life versus pro-choice debate really is. Apparently, there is no easy compromise, such as the pro-choice stand is acceptable so long as abortion is not one of the choices. To make issues more complicated, the book points out that the pro-life group not only opposes abortion but also birth control. The pro-life group argues that birth control should also be banned as it prevents life from being created. The pro-life group ignores the argument that prevention is a lesser evil to destroying a life already created. Being against both abortion and birth control justifies the stand of the pro-choice group – somebody has to defend women of their right to have options when faced with an unexpected (unwanted) pregnancy.

The pro-choice versus pro-life debate will never come to an end so long as both sides fail to recognize the need to set their own boundaries. The pro-choice group needs to understand that abortion is the taking of human life, and resorting to technical questions like when does life really begin doesn’t change that fact. The pro-life group needs to understand that there is no life that needs to be destroyed if measures are taken to prevent it from being created. Imposing the need to abstain from sex or resort to natural methods of birth control is not only a limitation on human liberty, it also ignores the natural weakness of the human flesh.

References:

http://www.christianbookpreviews.com/files/pdf/1414339399.pdf

https://sites.google.com/site/bennugerdbook/read-unplanned-the-dramatic-true-story-of-a-former-planned-parenthood-leaders-eye-opening-journey-across-the-life-line-by-abby-johnson-online-download-pdf

Additional reading:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/prolifechallenges.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/19/abby-johnson-doesnt-know-what-shes-talking-about/

The truth behind Lights Out, the movie

Lights Out is a horror movie about a mental patient, Diana, who haunts the family of Sophie, another mental patient she befriended when they were in confinement. Diana had a rare skin disorder wherein her skin was oversensitive to light. She died when a doctor, in an attempt to cure her, performed an experiment and over exposed her to light.

Sophie, previously confined for depression, got out of the institution. But her depression recurs as Diana’s spirit continues to follow her and gets in the way of her getting any medication. As Sophie’s depression progresses, so does Diana’s presence in her life as her only ‘friend.’ Sophie is lured into surroundings of near total darkness – Diana’s refuge from even the slightest ray of light which can burn her skin.

Unfortunately, Diana is a friend who doesn’t want to share Sophie with anyone else – including her two former husbands who, Sophie was made to believe abandoned her and her children, but it turns out Diana killed.

Diana’s obsessive grip on Sophie goes too far when she goes after Sophie’s children, Rebecca and Martin. Rebecca, having grown into adulthood, moved out of the house where she grew up feeling Diana’s presence. Martin, her younger brother who still lives with his mother, experiences the same presence she did. Rebecca moves back in and, upon learning about Diana’s sensitivity to light, keeps the entire house lighted to keep Diana away. Diana, refusing to be kept away, sabotages the main power source in the basement. She succeeds in luring Rebecca and Martin to the basement, where they remained trapped until the police came to let them out.

In the end, Sophie came out of the dark holding a pistol to her head. Knowing that she was Diana’s only link to the human world, she shoots herself as the only way to stop Diana from killing her children.

This was an apparently fictional movie which has some touch of reality. Depression is definitely real, and it can create a feeling of such intense loneliness that a victim would rather create an imaginary friend than be alone. No matter how sick anyone is in the head, a mother will come to her senses when her children are under attack and need her protection – nothing fictional about that.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_(2016_film)

http://www.avclub.com/review/scariest-thing-about-lights-out-what-it-says-about-239598

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS AND THE QUESTION OF DISCRETION

One of the many issues reignited by the rise of the new administration in the Philippines is the need to address crimes committed by the youth. The law currently sets the age of criminal responsibility at fifteen. Any child younger who commits a crime is not penalized but subject to rehabilitation. Consequently, drug syndicates are using children as couriers knowing that, even if such children were caught, no penalty will be imposed.

On a similar note, youths below fifteen have been caught in crimes like rape, snatching and public fights. Laughably, there was an incident when one of them was caught and presented a birth certificate as evidence of minority and a basis to claim exemption from criminal liability.

The spirit of the law exempting the youth from criminal liability hinges on the presumption that the youth are not mature enough to have developed a sense of discretion, or the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and the ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions. But who would believe that a youth lacks discretion when, upon being caught in the act, has the nerve to present evidence and an argument to defend themselves?

Criminal responsibility should not be based on age but the ability to understand that one’s actions are wrong, and with such understanding, commits the act anyway.

Criminal responsibility should also be based on the freedom to commit the crime knowing it is wrong. Anyone reading this article was a child once, and armed with the knowledge that it is not always easy to disobey what an adult instructs. How do you make a child understand that stealing is wrong, if they go home to parents who nurture the belief that they have to steal if they want to eat? How do you make a child understand that drugs destroy the future, if they are compelled to deliver the same by an adult who has a gun pointed to their head?

Bottom line: there can be no hard and fast rules to determine criminal responsibility. Some people are intelligent criminals at the age of fourteen, some forty year old imbeciles don’t know exposing themselves to passers by qualifies as a lascivious act punishable by law.

References:

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/06/08/1590859/criminal-liability-age-may-be-lowered-12

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/794594/alvarez-files-bill-lowering-age-of-criminal-liability

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/07/21/1605076/plan-lower-minimum-age-crime-responsibility-opposed

Private schools back lowering age of criminal responsibility

MUSLIM TERRORISM BLAMED FOR ORLANDO BOMBING

The Pulse, a nightclub in Orlando, FL frequently visited by the gay community, was subject to a bombing by a New york born radicalist named Omar Matteen. The attack has been branded as an act of terrorism, but the authorities are still unclear on why the attacker chose a gay nightclub in particular. Reports say the attack was motivated by revenge after a series of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, the attackers supposed homeland. Absent evidence of ties to any terrorist group, the authorities stand by the assumption that the attackers radicalism is homegrown and ignited by extremist information and propaganda gracing the internet. Reports say the weapons used in the attack were all legally obtained and licensed. The incident brought to light the issues of gun control and possible LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) discrimination.

More importantly, the incident brings to the forefront the divide between Democratic and Republican presidential aspirants the issue of unbridled migration and its connection to terrorism.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump wants a ban on Muslim migration. He stands on the premise that Muslims hate everyone from Jews to Christians, and everyone else in between – an attitude that cannot survive an open and tolerant society.

U.S. President Barrack Obama, however, apparently disagrees with such a proposal since it will discriminate against Muslims who, though of a different faith, are still Americans. Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton prefers to articulate measures to combat terrorism and gun violence in American soil.

Donald Trump is coming from a point of generalization that all Muslims are incapable of tolerating anyone different from them. This is blatantly wrong since not all Muslims, just like not all human beings, are the same. A total ban on Muslim migration would be discriminatory because it will prejudice even those Muslims who have no connection to terrorism.

At the same time, prevention is better than cure, and no amount of policies to combat terrorism and illegal use of firearms will bring back the lives of people sacrificed each time the government fails in their drive to abort such acts at their conception.

Perhaps the best compromise is not a total ban on Muslim migration, but an increase in monitoring all migrants who arouse suspicion of terrorist tendencies, regardless of religion. It is not discrimination if all migrants in the same circumstances will be treated the same. It is not discrimination if there is a clear distinction that justifies a different treatment.

Not all Muslim migrants should be subject to the magnifying glass of the government – just those who appear suspicious of intending to disturb the peace and order of society.

References:

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/orlando-nightclub-shooting/486713/

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/15/orlando_shooter_said_attack_was_revenge_for_u_s_bombing_of_afghanistan_survivor_recalls/

THE POSSIBLE REBIRTH OF THE DEATH PENALTY

Its official – for the first time in Philippine history, a candidate from the Muslim dominated province of Mindanao has won the presidential throne. Its official – history repeats itself as the son of a former dictator loses an election to a widow clad in yellow.

Presumptive president Rodrigo Duterte has expressed his support for the death penalty, a stand that is unlikely to change at any time soon, what with the drug related events plaguing the country even before his formal inauguration. Duterte has been a reputed advocate of extrajudicial killings even before winning the presidency. He apparently has no sympathy for people who are killed because their crimes caught up with them.

The death penalty is currently suspended. There was an attempt at its restoration, but only for the most heinous crimes as allowed by the current constitution. Unfortunately, congress never got around to a definition of what qualifies as ‘heinous’ crimes. As an alternative, the law imposes life imprisonment – a guarantee that a criminal, who has committed what may qualify as a heinous crime, will never get out of jail – but not a guarantee that he will never roam the streets again and commit an equally perverted act either by escaping or, by some miracle, being granted a presidential pardon.

Philippine criminal law is enshrined in the culture of reformation. The country’s penal system imposes imprisonment with the intention of giving criminals a chance to correct their ways. What the law fails to address is that circumstance wherein a criminal is perverted to an extent that all attempts at reformation has failed. Yes, there are criminals who have been in and out of prison, either for the same or different crimes. Is imprisonment still a solution when it obviously has no effect.?

This article submits that it is time to revisit the death penalty. Yes, it is an extreme penalty to be imposed only after a thorough consideration. A penalty that should be imposed only after all attempts at reformation has failed. True, even criminals are entitled to human rights. But the government has an obligation to give all other humans within their jurisdiction a peaceful and orderly society.

The support for the death penalty as a last resort is inspired by the balancing of rights doctrine – the human rights of a criminal who has no respect for the rights of everyone else, is outweighed by the right of everyone else to peace and order – a peace and order which can only be attained if the society is freed from habitual criminals who adamantly refuse to straighten their path.

References:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/750698/duterte-wants-death-penalty-back

http://armageddonviews.weebly.com/blog/death-penalty-moral-and-judicial-debate-under-the-philippine-government

http://www.philstar.com/sunday-life/169059/are-you-or-against-death-penalty

Presidential Battle Highlights

As election day looms closer, the population of Philippine voters must confront the inevitable decision as to who will become the next president. Will it be the crime and punishment advocate who promises to instill order and free the entire country from criminals within six months, perhaps through the same extra judicial executions prevalent in his local territory? Will it be the fighter against graft and corruption, who is also fighting to survive cancer and its complications? Will it be the former mayor of the country’s flourishing business district turned vice president, who continues to be haunted with corruption charges? Or should the presidential throne go to the administration bet who has enough resources to come up with campaign ads graced with innuendos against his opponents? Or should the new kid on the block be given a chance, the one whose citizenship was questioned, overshadowing the fact that her lack of experience in government service is a bigger reason to question her candidacy?

The deal is far from sealed, but the two presidential debates aired live definitely served as an instrument to bring the five candidates up for scrutiny – just like the potential candidates for the highest position in a company (okay, in this case, in the country). The debates not only exposed the ideals each candidate stood for but also how they respond to attacks. Some of the more notable expositions follow.

The candidate who vows to remove income tax for employees earning below 30,000 pesos has no idea how this is going to work, he merely assumes the government’s other sources of funds will be able to compensate for the taxes that will no longer be collected in honor of his promise.

The administration candidate who boasts about the increase in the number of drug pushers his department has placed behind bars, had no sound rebuttal to the claim that drug pushing continues behind bars.

There is an overlapping of authorities when it comes to the control and supervision of the police force, as the candidates who occupied a mayor’s post and the internal and local government secretary ended up pointing fingers over a failed military operation a year ago which claimed the lives of forty-four soldiers.

The candidate whose citizenship was questioned was alleged to have said she hates the country she is now attempting to run. Her rebuttal is at least she is not stealing from the government.

The divorce bill, if ever subjected to veto power is a goner since none of the candidates will support it…but, hey, there is a chance that the death penalty will rise from the grave.

Now, back to square one: who should be the next president among such ‘promising’ candidates? May 9, 2016 for the answer.

References:

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/03/20/second-presidential-debate-cebu-grace-poe-jejomar-binay-rodrigo-duterte-mar-roxas.html

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/22/1565251/fact-checking-second-presidential-debate