“DEATH PENALTY: to solve crime problems in the Philippines”

It is no triumph that death sentences are routinely carried out, or even that such a device is necessary within our society. Yet the fact remains that society does require a death penalty, and to believe that the topic is one-sided or easily answered would be a fatal mistake. It is best to note the absolutes of the death penalty – first, that once it is carried out, there is no reversing the outcome. It seems an obvious point, but it is worth remembering, as it warns us that state-sanctioned executions must never be taken lightly. Just as firm is the fact that in most cases, the death penalty is a matter of justice and equality. With most crimes, the purposes of t

The Philippine government has promised its people peace and security. For the government to fulfill its’ promises, death penalty should be implemented to meet the demands of maximum safety and security. The military or police can’t simply kill their fellow Filipinos if they did a crime that is why the existence of these criminals still gives threat to the people. There is still a chance that these criminals could escape and continue terrorizing the citizens. Implementing death penalty can be a symbol of power for the government, which can be used to prove to the citizens that the government is powerful enough to lessen the crimes happening in the country thus fulfilling its’ promises to the citizenry.

In correction, if capital punishment teaches that it’s permissible to kill, do prison sentences teach that it’s permissible to hold someone against his will, and do fines teach that it’s permissible to steal? In actuality, this fallacy confuses killing the innocent with punishing the guilty. To punish the guilty via the death penalty is not to condone the shedding of innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact, since capital punishment sends a strong message that murder and other capital crimes will not be tolerated.

A related fallacy is that the pro-lifer who defends the right to life of an unborn baby in the mother’s womb, but who does not defend the right to life of a convicted murderer on death row, is being morally inconsistent. But there is no inconsistency here: The unborn baby is innocent; the convicted murderer is not. It is the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty liberal who is morally inconsistent, since he supports putting to death only the innocent. Pro-lifers deceive themselves if they imagine abolishing the death penalty will lead to abolishing abortion or a greater respect for life. To the contrary, nations with the death penalty generally restrict abor

Some topics in this essay:
Philippines Philippine, Catholic Conference, Political Science, death penalty, , Philippines Philippines, Culture Violence, heinous crimes, prison cells, Marquette University, death penalty implemented, implementation death penalty, implementing death penalty, implementing death, implementation death, it’s permissible, penalty implemented, capital punishment, overcrowding people, death penalty person, death penalty effective, crime rates,