By PROUT
President Duterte called for the reimposition of the death penalty during his State of the Nation Address in 2020. It is a good thing that Congress has not acted on this call so far. With the incumbent’s term about to end, the question is–will his successor push for the same thing with Congress?
Depending on the sentiment of voters, some candidates may promise its reimposition or make a stand that they are against capital punishment. At least one presidential candidate has already backtracked on his hard stance in favor of the reimposition of the death penalty. Perhaps the pulse is that the voters are not in favor of its reimposition.
To those in favor of restoring the death penalty, the obvious justification is that heinous crimes need to be punished in the extreme, hence the term capital punishment.
We have already cited a compelling reason against capital punishment in a previous post (16 May 2020). A wrongful execution cannot be reversed. This no state can dispute. Wrongful convictions happen all the time for various reasons. Appreciation of forensic evidence may be flawed. Eyewitness accounts may be wrong. There could be prosecutorial misconduct. But over and above the issue of irreversibility of capital panishment once executed, PROUT stands firm that justice should be reformative, not punitive. The death penalty does not reform, it destroys.
Voters who are against the reimposition of the death penalty (PROUTists belong to this group) should be careful to not vote for candidates who may only be proclaiming they are against it as well just to get votes (“wolf in sheep’s clothing “?).
Granted, many factors should be considered in deciding: who should get our vote? But a candidate’s real stand regarding an issue as basic as the death penalty should be among them. (To be continued next week.)**
