According to a study conducted in the late 1960’s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on

the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with
the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents
say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes.

Some tout the death penalty as the most effective deterrent the legal system has at its
disposal. Such people believe that if the death penalty were to be abolished, it would lead to an
increase in violent crimes for which it is foreseen, like murder. Others argue that the death
penalty is not an effective crime deterrent and that alternative approaches have a greater impact
in reducing such crime. Given that a majority of the world’s countries have done away with the
death penalty in law, the debate is not speculative: we have data available to test these claims.

According to Amnesty International’s report on the death penalty in 2017, 106 countries
have abolished capital punishment. Formal abolition, rather than a moratorium in practice, is key
to the argument, since it may be reasonably assumed that only in a country where potential
criminals are certain they stand no risk of capital punishment, and where governments are
publicly and legally committed not to use it, that any deterrent effect would be null. Furthermore,
abolition must not have followed a moratorium of long duration, as it may be reasonably
assumed that formal abolition would not have the same effect in countries where the death
penalty had not been carried out in practice regardless of its legal status (e.g. Mexico, where
official abolition in 2005 trailed the last non-military execution by nearly seven decades.)

For purposes of this investigation, we will plot data for countries which both a) formally
abolished the death penalty and b) implemented a capital sentence at least ten years prior to
abolition. Data is not available for all such countries: some did away with the death penalty
before standardized criminal statistics became widespread (e.g. Venezuela in 1863, Portugal in
1867), while others abolished so recently that yearly statistics cannot be used to plot a
meaningful pattern (e.g. Guinea in 2017, Benin and Nauru in 2016).

Data compiled by the World Trade Organization is available for eleven countries meeting
these conditions, from a variety of geographical and cultural settings: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,
Poland, Serbia, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, South Africa, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Albania. Their
intentional homicide trends (number of annual murders per 100,000 people) are plotted in the
chart below, starting at the year of abolition (“1” on the x-axis) and continuing through the tenth
year after abolition (“11” on the x-axis). In order to more readily compare trends, y-axis values
are not given absolutely, but relative to each country’s year of abolition baseline (thus 0 at “1”
on the y-axis):

As these graphs demonstrate, death penalty abolition correlated on average with a

decline in murder rates in eleven countries for which data is available. In fact, as the last graph’s
trend line indicates, a country in this set which abolished the death penalty could expect an
average of approximately six less murders per 100,000 people a decade after abolition. Death
penalty advocates’ fears that the state relinquishing the ultimate punishment will embolden
potential criminals, or at least weaken deterrence, prove to be unfounded in light of this
evidence.

To those who have followed the twists and turns of the history of the death penalty in the
Philippines, much of the arguments for and against the current move to reimpose capital
punishment are not new. Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, in sponsoring the bill
reimposing the death penalty, cited four “compelling” reasons: 1) The death penalty is a fitting
response to increasing criminality and killings in the county; 2)The death penalty is a measure to
restore respect for the laws of the land; 3) Death is a path to achieving justice; and 4)
Reimposition of the death penalty is geared towards a genuine reform in the Philippines criminal
justice system.

Toward the end of the Obama administration, the bureau said it was still “in the process of
revising its execution protocol.” Earlier this year, the Bureau of Prisons declined to address
whether the agency was attempting to obtain the drugs used for executions.

An addendum describing the updated protocol was submitted Thursday by federal officials as
part of a lawsuit filed more than a decade ago by death-row inmates challenging the previous
three-drug procedure.
The addendum is similar in many ways to a previous protocol — dated Aug. 1, 2008 — that a
Justice Department official had said in 2015 was the procedure being reviewed under President
Barack Obama.

But it has some notable differences. The 2008 protocol had language the new document lacks,
including guidance for what to do if “a situation not contemplated in this procedure” occurs,
which could lead authorities to pause the execution, close the curtains to witnesses or escort
them out.

The older protocol also said officials, including medical personnel, may conduct “a complete
assessment” and then determine if the execution should resume, start from the beginning or be
rescheduled. That language does not appear in the new document.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the differences between the two
protocols.

Federal death sentences account for a fraction of the more than 2,600 people on death row in
the United States. Executions are also extremely rare for federal prisoners, with the government
carrying out three executions since the federal death penalty statute was expanded in 1994.
In 2001, the government executed Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing and Juan
Raul Garza for murdering three men. The last federal inmate to be executed was when Louis
Jones Jr. was put to death in 2003 for the kidnapping, rape and murder of 19-year-old Army Pvt.
Tracie Joy McBride. All three executions were carried out using the three-drug protocol.

Death penalty as a measure to restore respect in the laws of the land

Not only is crime being committed in our streets and in our homes; crimes are being
committed even inside our local jails and in our national prisons. Criminals continue to
damage our society even inside our national prison. Instead of suffering the consequences
of their wrongdoings, they even live a luxurious life inside our penitentiaries. On this
score, there is a need to reform the punitive aspect of our penal system for how can we
strike fear in the hearts of these criminals when they know that their prison sentence will
even serve as their refuge to continue illegal activities? When they know that they could
actually live a better life inside the prison? How can we say that justice has been achieved
when instead of punishing these criminals, they are even allowed to perpetuate their illicit
activities while serving their sentence, on account of the tara system imposed by
unscrupulous prison officials.
In the past months that our Committee on Justice conducted hearings and legislative
inquiries, it is with much remorse that we have been witnesses to the various spectacles
that exposed how rotten our criminal justice system has become. Our citizens were
appalled with the revelations that our legislative inquiries exposed. Testimonies from
numerous witnesses led us to discover the rampant corruption inside our penitentiaries.
The people observed in frustration and disgust as the very institution which should have
penalized our convicts tolerated the commission of drug trade and other illegal activities
inside the penitentiary. Instead of being punished for their criminal acts, the prisoners
were allowed to live luxuriously inside, to the point of even ridiculing congressional offices
compared to an inmate’s kubol. Crime syndicates in connivance with unscrupulous
government officials took advantage of the flawed system to feed their selfish interests
and perpetuate the impunity of crime.
Imagine the time, effort and resources spent by our government in investigating these
criminals, capturing them through our law enforcement agencies, prosecuting them,
presenting evidence against them, giving them a fair trial, and then finally convicting them
for the crimes they have committed, only to find out that the punishment of
imprisonment has little or no effect on their criminal activities. Imagine the taxes paid by
the victims of heinous crimes that feed those who have wronged them.
Talking about restorative justice, I can only wonder how deserving these criminals
deserve are, when they act with impunity inside our jails? How can these convicted felons
be reformed after serving their sentence when they willingly commit crimes inside our
jails and prisons, presumably, out of fear of reprisal from gang leaders lording over the
underworld, with the tacit 8 approval and/or sanction of prison authorities; When the
culture inside our jail system has evolved into one where you will either starve in prison,
or where you can live a life of luxury and comfort if you stick to the right gang or
syndicate?
Mr Speaker, what I have just described are not mere hypotheticals. THESE ARE FACTS.
These were revelations during the hearings conducted by the Committee on Justice on
the proliferation of drugs inside the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP). Mismong ang ating mga
kababayan ang nakarinig sa mga rebelasyon ng mga bilanggo tungkol sa kalat at malawak
na operasyon ng droga sa ating mga kulungan. Sa mismong maximum security prison kung
saan dapat sana ay mas mahigpit ang seguridad, ang siyang naging sentro ng kalakalan ng
ilegal na droga. Hindi lang basta maliliit na bentahan ng droga ang nangyayari sa loob ng
ating mga kulungan. milyun-milyon ang kinikita ng mga bilanggo at mga koneksyon nila
sa labas. Hindi ko po lubos maisip na ang drogang siyang naging dahilan kung bakit ang
isang musmos na bata ay magahasa o ang isang inosenteng anak ay pinatay, ay
nagmumula mismo sa kulungan na dapat maging daan upang mapagbago ang mga
nakagawa ng krimen.
One particular aspect of that hearing struck me: When the convicted felons were asked
the question: Ano ang mas kinakatakutan mo: kulungan o kamatayan?, all of them gave
the same answer: DEATH (Kamatayan).
These convicts are not afraid of imprisonment. In fact, all of them were serving life
sentences. What they only feared was death – the ultimate punishment for convicted
criminals that would put an emphatic stop to their capacity to commit more crimes.
Indeed, humans fear death more than anything else. Ordinary, law-abiding citizens fear
imprisonment. Hardened criminals and those who are capable of committing heinous
crimes fear nothing – except death.
Mr Speaker, before we conducted these hearings on the Bilibid drug trade, I was also
against death penalty. Dati, hindi ako naniniwala na kinakailangan ng parusang
kamatayan para panatilihin ang katahimikan sa ating mga kalsada at komunidad. After
hearing all those testimonies, the corruption of our jail guards and other high-ranking
officials in the government, the way these criminals conducted their illegal activities with
impunity inside our jails, I HAD A CHANGE IN HEART. I have come to the conclusion that
we need to strike fear in these criminals, and the only way to do that is to impose the
punishment that they most fear – death. Layunin din ng ating isinusulong na Death
Penalty Bill na ipaalala sa ating mga kababayan na ang mga batas ay hindi dapat
balewalain kundi mga alintuntunin na dapat respetuhin at sundin, tulad ng pagrespeto at
pagsunod ng Pilipino sa ibang bansa sa mga batas na umiiral sa kanilang kinaroroonan.

Death penalty: Our path to achieving justice

I admit, Mr Speaker, that these problems involving our prisons and our prison system are
but symptoms of a greater problem of the CJS. The truth of the matter, my esteemed
colleagues, is that we are merely scratching the surface of a deeply rooted menace which
is the derogation of the entire criminal justice system. In fact, the killing of Mayor Espinosa
in jail, showcases our dilemma. Imagine, a judge issuing a search warrant within the jail
premises; a prisoner in posession of illegal firearms and drugs inside the prison cell; law
enforcers effecting search in the wee hours of the morning, to the point of excluding jail
authorities, then the resulting death of Mayor Espinosa.

Thereafter, we witnessed the Senate inquiry conducted thereon where we witnessed

these involved policemen trying to cover each other’s back. Thus, I can only wonder how
we can arrive at the truth and serve the ends of justice in the death of Mayor Espinosa.
Mind you, the systemic wide problem in the Criminal Justice System cannot be solved
through piece meal legislative measures. There is a need to reengineer the system
comprehensively and holistically. Muli ang mga solusyon at pagbabagong kinakailangan
para baguhin ang isang bulok na sistema ay hindi magagawa sa isang upuan lang.
Mahabang panahon ang kailangan upang makamtan ang pangkalahatang pagbabago.
In fact, the several hearings we conducted on

Thereafter, we witnessed the Senate inquiry conducted thereon where we witnessed

these involved policemen trying to cover each other’s back. Thus, I can only wonder how
we can arrive at the truth and serve the ends of justice in the death of Mayor Espinosa.
Mind you, the systemic wide problem in the Criminal Justice System cannot be solved
through piece meal legislative measures. There is a need to reengineer the system
comprehensively and holistically. Muli ang mga solusyon at pagbabagong kinakailangan
para baguhin ang isang bulok na sistema ay hindi magagawa sa isang upuan lang.
Mahabang panahon ang kailangan upang makamtan ang pangkalahatang pagbabago.
In fact, the several hearings we conducted on the matter, have already resulted in
pursuing policy initiatives to address reforms in the correctional system in a way that
would prevent convicts from further committing crimes inside our prisons. But the more
pressing question now is: What do we do in the meantime? How can we, as legislators,
simply stand aside and wait with bated breath for these so-called “reforms” to take place
– reforms that have been promised when the death penalty was abolished more than ten
years ago?
It must be remembered that the cornerstone of our criminal justice system is the
presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary in conviction. In
this regard, our justice system is geared and skewed in favor of the accused. Laws and
evidence are always interpreted to favor the accused such that an ounce of doubt would
weaken a prosecution case against the accused. Therefore, all the accused are not
automatically subject to conviction. Verily, it cannot be said that death penalty is anti-
poor.
Let me address another important point, Mr. Speaker. There have been concerns raised
that given our justice system, the restoration of the death penalty would eventually lead
to the execution of an innocent person. I would like to emphasize that from the time a
person has been arrested for a crime, that person will be subjected to due process. Even
if an accused has been sentenced to death by the trial court, that person still has the
remedy of appeal to the Court of Appeals. And even if the CA would sustain the RTC
conviction, the Supreme Court would still conduct an automatic review, and would re-
open the case and weigh all the evidence in order to determine whether the death
penalty should be imposed, or the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
would suffice. Lastly, the President may exercise his powers of clemency or pardon at any
stage of the proceedings, even right before the execution. In short, Mr. Speaker, once the
death penalty is restored, no person will be executed without having gone through this
long and exhaustive process at determining whether or not the accused deserves the
death penalty for the crime committed.
Against the foregoing long, tedious, and judicious process, otherwise known as due
process, is Extra Judicial Killing (EJK), where any Tom, Dick and Harry, including men in
uniform, can impose their death wish on anyone, guilty or not. To make matters worse,
some of these men in uniform are taking advantage of the war on drugs in enforcing a
scheme referred to as “Tokhang For Ransom”. Sa halip na bumaling ang ating mga
kababayan sa kapulisan para sa kanilang proteksiyon at kaligtasan, sila pang mga nasa
awtoridad mismo ang umaabuso sa kapangyarihan at gumagawa ng mga karumaldumal
na krimen. Wala nang paggalang at takot na gumawa ng katiwalian ang ilang miyembro
ng ating kapulisan dahil marahilang iniisip nila ay matatakasan naman nila ang batas. Now
Mr. Speaker, are we still insisting that criminality has not reached such heights as to
compel our government to impose the death penalty? Do we not see the reality that
compels us to address this challenge ahead of us? So take your pick: Death without due
process, or death after due process? Kaya nga po kailangan nating muling buhayin ang
parusang kamatayan upang makamtan ang inaasam ng lahat na tunay na katarungan.
When we look at the re-imposition of death penalty, we must not only look at the life of
the convicted. Also, we must also look at the innocent lives of the rest of the community
and all other peace loving citizens who fear these criminals, to include men in uniform
and other law enforcement agents, who use their police power to perpetuate crimes. We
must look at the hapless faces of victims deprived of justice and speedy resolution –
agonizing for years because criminals have found ways to skirt the law and hide from
dysfunctional criminal justice system.
It is high time that we must look at the impact of death penalty to the entire community
– the entire country. The police power of the state must reign, as capital punishment is
not just about the life of the criminal sentenced to death