HOUSE leaders seem hell-bent on ramming through legislation to reinstate the death penalty, in line with President Rodrigo Duterte’s hardline approach to dealing with crime.
Unfortunately, they seem to be going about the task on blind faith, believing rather than actually knowing that executing criminals will somehow deter others from following in their footsteps, or benefit society by instituting death as a form state retribution.
Thus, the President’s allies believe that reinstating the death penalty will somehow bring down the crime rate, when the evidence suggests otherwise.
For example, in the United States, the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
Moreover, a study published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that 88 percent of criminologists in the United States believed that the death penalty was not a deterrent to murder.
At the same time, both logic and experience tell us that the threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime or those who suffer from mental illness.
Perhaps because the evidence to support the death penalty as a deterrent is so scant, the President has instead framed capital punishment as a form of retributive justice rather than as a deterrent, going back to the Old Testament dictum of “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.”
This approach seems more appropriate to a backward, authoritarian society than a modern, humanistic state, but none of this seems to matter to the President or his allies.
In fact, Mr. Duterte’s man in the House, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, is doggedly determined not to bring logic or conscience into the equation, but to rely on fear, intimidation and blind loyalty.
Alvarez has warned his fellow PDP-Laban members that they must vote for the reinstatement of the death penalty or leave the party. If they hold key committee chairmanships, they will also be replaced.
“They’re free to resign from the party,” Alvarez said when asked what would happen to PDP-Laban members who vote against the bill. “If you don’t agree with the party stand, you might as well quit.”
“If they do not agree with an administration bill, we will replace them,” he added.
The Speaker’s combativeness extends to his colleagues in the Senate, who have held off discussing a similar bill in their chamber over legal concerns.
“We are not dependent on them. It is up to them if they will pass it or not,” Alvarez said, referring to the Senate. “Nobody can control the House on what [it wants] to do. I do not care [if the Senate will not support it]. It is not my concern.”
Someone ought to remind the Speaker, who has death on his mind, that it takes two chambers to pass a law, no matter how fervently he wants to goose step to the drumbeat from the Palace.