Death penalty won’t deter serious crimes
DEBATES are ongoing in Congress on reinstating the death penalty for heinous crimes. The proposal has already reached the plenary at the House of Representatives, while the Senate suspended deliberations at the committee level as it became clear that restoring the death penalty would violate the country’s treaty obligations— particularly, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Those in favor of restoring the death penalty point to the “deterrent effect” of capital punishment, preventing criminals from committing grave crimes out of fear. President Duterte said that meting out capital punishment is retribution for those who have committed heinous crimes.
On the other hand, those against the death penalty point to the virtually universal consensus that there is no such deterrent effect. For instance, a 2009 University of Chicago survey of criminologists in the US found that up to 88 percent of the interviewees did not believe the death penalty had any effect on preventing crime.
Recently, Manila Times columnist Rigoberto Tiglao wrote a two-part series debunking claims that the incidence of heinous crimes in the Philippines increased after we abolished the death penalty in 2006. Citing Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) data, Tiglao pointed out that the rate of heinous crimes remained unchanged between 2006 and 2016—at an annual average of 2.98 per 100,000 population. He also referred to a 2013 72-country study in the European Journal of Law and Economics that determined “police efficiency” affected crime rates the most, over other factors like population density, GDP per capita, or unemployment rate. In short, the more efficient a police force was in serving their duties, the more likely crime rates were down.
So what is the solution? A 2015 report by the Impunity and Justice Research Center of the Universidad de las Americas ranked the Philippines as having the worst impunity problem, topping a 59country list whose top 5 includes Mexico, Colombia, Turkey and Russia.
The report defines impunity as a situation of “crime without punishment,” where there are structural and functional problems to how a state provides security and how justice institutions fulfill their mandates. Impunity, the report continues, “is closely linked with unequal access to justice, inadequate institutional design, lack of structural capacities and disregard of citizen’s rights.” Finding a solution to impunity therefore is to focus on institutions.
More than 7,000 people have already been killed since the administration’s war against drugs started in July. Out of some 3,603 cases of deaths under investigation as of January 9, 2017, only 922 cases have been concluded. Such a low conclusion rate illustrates how cases often take very long to get solved, a problem exacerbated by a graft-ridden—or worse, rogue—police. No less than President Duterte branded our police corrupt to the core.
Stories of corruption abound about the courts and law enforcement agencies. Amnesty International recently exposed an “economy of murder” thriving in the country, where policemen get 18,000 to 115,000 per drug pusher or addict killed during anti-drug operations. And some funeral homes are part of the murderous racket, giving policemen incentives for every dead body brought to them.
Even though the drive against illegal drugs has been suspended since the dastardly killing of Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo inside Camp Crame, the body count continues to rise. Recently, 7 were killed in a span of three hours in Quezon City, while an environmental lawyer in Bohol was shot dead, while she was driving with her children.
Fighting criminality is best achieved through reforms that speed up courts and prosecution procedures, overhaul the police and other law enforcement agencies, and cleanse them of corruption. Reinstating capital punishment will only make us into an international pariah as we will be reneging on our treaty obligations. In no way will that solve our problems with impunity.