Help Pahumanize naman po ng essay huhu

[LenXine]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[ribbit]

Test mo nalang ito ts

Admittedly, the legalization of the death penalty in the Philippines has been a contentious issue, stirring emotions and sparking intense discussion with respect to justice, morality, and human rights. Those favoring capital punishment argue that it will deter the commission of heinous crimes and provide a sense of justice for victims and their families. However, a closer look will reveal significant flaws in this argument. This essay analyzes the key reasons why the death penalty should not be legalized in the Philippines, focusing on the risks of executing the innocent, the flawed deterrence effect, and the unequal application that perpetuates inhumanity and violates fundamental human rights.

The Philippines has had a checkered history of the death penalty, first abolished in 1987 and then returned through the Duterte administration in 2016. This reinstatement has stirred a furious debate within the nation, with both sides providing persuasive arguments pro and con capital punishment. Legalizing the death penalty impacts more than just the Philippine justice system; it touches upon the very fabric of society and human rights.

The central point in the debate of the death penalty in the Philippines really is about whether the State should impose the death sentence on citizens as punishment. This truly raises deep ethical questions concerning the value of human life, the potential for irreversible mistakes in the justice system, and the capital punishment inflicted on marginalized and vulnerable populations. Analyzing in view of the risks of execution of the innocent, the flawed deterrence effect, and the unequal application of the death penalty, it is observed that legalizing such a practice would be extremely harmful to the principles of justice and human rights in the Philippines.
The death penalty should not be legalized in the Philippines since there is always a chance that an innocent person will be executed, empirical evidence is actually lacking to prove its deterrence effect, and it continues to breed injustice and inhumanity in the justice system. Its place should instead be given to restorative justice, addressing the root causes of crime, and respect for the basic rights and dignity of each human being.

While the justice system is meant to maintain fairness and accuracy, it isn't perfect. Wrongful convictions could be due to a myriad of reasons: flawed evidence, misidentification by witnesses, and other procedural errors. In the case of the death penalty, the stakes are infinitely higher, and an irreversible error can result in the execution of an innocent person. The case of Nizar Mohammad Alam, a Lebanese national who spent nine years on death row in the Philippines for drug trafficking, is very illustrative of the dangers involved. The exoneration of Alam nine years later, based on a recanted witness, underscores the chilling reality of how innocent people can be sentenced to death based on flawed judgments.

The country has experienced cases where a person was placed on death row but proven innocent; this shows just how fallible the justice system is. The exonerations of these persons, after years of wrongful imprisonment, bring up serious questions regarding the reliability of capital punishment as a just and perfect form of punishment. Executing the innocent is a moral dilemma that cannot be ignored, and legalizing the death penalty in the Philippines would only raise the stakes of this ever occurring, bringing with it irreparable tragedies and compromising the integrity of the justice system.

One of the main arguments in favor of the death penalty is its alleged deterrence effect on crime. The fear of capital punishment keeps people from committing heinous crimes, thus helping to keep the crime rate down. However, empirical evidence does not clearly support this claim. Other studies have been conducted that have a direct relationship with the death penalty and have yielded mixed results, mostly with no causal link established between the two.

As will be noted, in the Philippines, one can trace the causal relationship between the increased number of crimes and the social and systemic factors that contribute to this. Focusing on the death penalty as a means of criminal deterrence is misguided, given that crime is the consequence of other factors like poverty, poor education, and social inequality. For this reason, the evidence-based approach to crime prevention involves the channeling of money into social programs, education, and rehabilitation to achieve a more lasting and effective solution to the problem of crime. Legalizing capital punishment as a deterrent overlooks these factors and continues to favor a punitive over a rehabilitative model of criminal justice.

The unequal imposition of the death penalty poses a great challenge to the principles of justice and equality in the Philippines. Marginalized and disadvantaged people, who usually have no access to quality legal representation, have a more than average impact from capital punishment. Indeed, it is the condition of the country's justice system that widens the chasm of wrong convictions and strict sentencing for those who cannot afford competent defense.

The cruelty of state-sanctioned killing is by no means diminished. The death penalty violates basic human rights principles, such as the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Legalizing such a practice condones violence and retribution, which only furthers the cycle of inhumanity that sets this type of policy into action, thus viciously *******ing the very fabric of society. The disproportionate application of the death penalty only strengthens already-entrenched systemic injustices and continues a culture of discrimination and marginalization within the Philippine justice system.

Lastly, the institution of capital punishment in the Philippines would be a serious mistake, full of ethical, moral, and practical implications. The risk of killing innocent people, the lack of empirical evidence for the deterrent effect, and the perpetuation of inequality and cruelty in the justice system all scream in support of rejecting capital punishment. It is time that attention be given to restorative justice, addressing the cause of crime, and observing the basic rights and respect due to persons.

With more emphasis on rehabilitation, social programs, and a fair distribution of justice, the Philippines may seek to move to a more just and humane approach in criminal justice, where the life of every person has inherent value in itself. Legalizing the death penalty would only create a cycle of violence and injustice, undermining the principles of fairness, compassion, and equality on which the country's legal system is grounded. It is vital that the Philippines stays true to its human rights and dignity by shirking the use of the death penalty and instead adopts a more enlightened and humane approach in the imposition of the penalty for the commission of a crime.

 

[LenXine]

Test mo nalang ito ts

salamat po boss, kaso 73% ai po sa zerogpt

 

[ribbit]

salamat po boss, kaso 73% ai po sa zerogpt

ayun lang. sensya na ts yan lang kaya ko. baka meron pa mas pro dito na makapag humanize nito