Capital punishment under President Duterte?
LAST Feb. 5, 2014, I wrote an article about capital punishment entitled “Will capital punishment spur economic growth?”
After nearly two and a-half years, the topic of capital punishment resurrected and gained significant relevance with President Duterte.
What I would like to further share and cascade are the principles behind capital punishment adopted within our Asian region.
One dominant cultural characteristic of our Asian neighbors, especially the more affluent ones, is that most, if not all, adopt and carry out capital punishment and institutionalize this in their justice system.
And research shows that the affluence of these countries may be attributed to capital punishment.
My position: capital punishment is justified when the degree of bestiality is committed against another person, especially to helpless infants and toddlers, elderly and young girls.
Now that capital punishment is to be institutionalized within the term of President Duterte, would this spur further economic growth, as what evolved within our affluent Asian neighbors?
From these prosperous Asian neighbors, fear has been struck in the hearts of their nationals whose ultimate outcome is respect for the law.
In these countries, a crime committed deserving capital punishment is judged based on its degree of bestiality and brutality intended to protect life and its nationals from grave harm, such as kidnapping, rape, robbery, murder and even drug smuggling. Included are proven corruption cases led by government officials.
The cultural heritage of Asians is another aspect to consider. Fear of the law seems to permeate in progressive Asian countries arising from a deep respect for law, self and others.
China has overtaken traditionally progressive Asian, American, European, Middle East and African nations in terms of rate of continuous economic growth. Respect for the law rises as a consequence of its law on capital punishment.
Singapore is also highly respected and regarded by the whole world as a country so peaceful and progressive.
Malaysia has likewise transformed into an economic powerhouse.
Capital punishment is strictly enforced, especially if it is drug related.
Since 1960, there have been 441 executions, nearly half are drug related.
Today, there are nearly 700 cases under death row; nearly 70 percent are drug related.
On the other hand, Japan’s capital punishment is a statutory mandate covering crimes related to murder and treason.
Between 1946 and 1993, Japanese courts sentenced 766 people to death, 608 of whom were executed.
The death penalty is ordinarily imposed on cases of multiple murders involving aggravating factors.
And as we can all see, Japan remains to be an economic powerhouse.
All these Asian economic titans have one common denominator. They imposed a measure to strike fear in the hearts of their nationals to ensure respect for the law.
In so doing, stability ensued.
Arguments against capital punishment have always been linked to political, professional consequences and religious beliefs.
The seeming shield has consistently been the need to show mercy upon the criminals.
Completely erased from the spectrum are the sentiments of the victims, pain and suffering from relatives, economic impact upon the lives of families left behind.
Completely disregarded are the dimensions of bestiality and heinousness of the crime.
In the Philippines, striking fear in the hearts of the citizenry and public servants has been proven to be a factor contributing to economic growth.
The stance of President Aquino against corruption starting from the judiciary (ala Justice Corona) has empowered the government and private sector to pursue infrastructure projects—encouraging investments from internal and external investors.
From this measure alone, confidence in our country has risen with investment grades rising.
Crime remains unabated though, against claims of a rate of decline being documented.
Politics remains to be an element that saw the implementation, suspension, revocation and reinstatement of capital punishment.
President Marcos implemented the law in his term, eventually revoked, then reinstated by President Ramos, implemented by President Estrada, again revoked by President Macapagal-Arroyo.
Each decision was based on the political scenario managed by the incumbent President.
When President Macapagal-Arroyo abolished capital punishment, there was a recorded rise in crime rate by as much as 37 percent, with the Maguindanao massacre being the highlight.
The logic, or illogic, commonly used to block capital punishment is that crime will still be committed despite its presence and will not deter crimes completely.
But the seeming reality is that whatever set of measures a country takes, crimes persist, regardless of religious and political beliefs notwithstanding.
Capital punishment may be a desired option to consider as a just recompense equal to the gravity of the crime.
But will capital punishment spur economic growth? Only time will tell.
(The article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or MAP. The author is a member of the MAP CSR Committee and the President for Projects of nv vogt Philippines Solar Energy One, Inc. Feedback at <[email protected]> and <[email protected]>. For previous articles, please visit <map.org.ph>)
