Death penalty’s psychological toll

Now it’s up to the Senate to hold the fort against the passage into law of the restoration of the death penalty. The House of Representatives passed by a huge margin—217 in favor, 54 against, and one abstention—the proposed legislation. But congressional leaders have said they were “surprised” that the “antis” were able to muster more than 50 votes, including those cast by such personalities as former first lady Imelda Marcos and Batangas Rep. Vilma Santos Recto.

Now opposition senators, mainly with the Liberal Party, are saying they are determined to halt the steady march to restoration of the death penalty. However, judging from the voting behavior of senators, the majority would expectedly go along with the Duterte administration’s bloodlust.

But given what’s been happening, I’m inclined to say that we don’t even need the restoration of the death penalty. With the nightly executions (for that’s what they are) of suspected drug users and pushers, it has already been implemented for almost a year.

The provision limiting the death penalty to those convicted of drug-related crimes would simply put a legal face on an ugly reality—one where no arrests or trials are necessary before suspects are put to death. Of course, the police insist that the nightly shootings are either the result of the suspects fighting back or the work of hired assassins. But observers on the “EJK” beat note that responding police don’t even bother to interview witnesses to the shootings, with perfunctory evidence gathering performed by responders. Seems like they know something we don’t.

Anyway, the regime of casual nocturnal killings cannot but have an impact on survivors—specifically, on the families and friends of those who have been killed, and, in a broader sense, on the rest of society.

Already, we are seeing the impact on the widows (married or not), orphaned children, parents, friends, and neighbors of the summarily executed. Reporters and photographers say one doesn’t have to search long for the site of an EJK; one need only listen for the sound of mournful keening from the victim’s home. Imagine the broader social impact of “legal” and “institutionalized” executions.

Recently, the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) issued a statement on the proposed restoration of the death penalty, “from the point of view of evidence-based social science, psychology in particular, as well as of ethics.”

Most interesting is the association’s take on the “huge toll on the psychological wellbeing of victims, offenders, and their families.”

The association’s statement cites current realities. “Majority of those on death row,” it says, “have been convicted of rape, with incestuous rape as the most common form. Victims of incestuous rape rarely seek the death of their offender but simply desire cessation of abuse, reestablishment of safety, and rehabilitation of their family member. A possible death penalty sentence for these cases has been noted to keep victims from pursuing charges, anda death sentence for the offender can bring guilt to the victim, further sorrow, and conflict within affected families. In fact, majority of groups representing women and children in the Philippines, who are common victims of death penalty crimes, have taken a stance against capital punishment for rape and incest because they believe it would not solve the problem.”

———— And yet, President Duterte, on the occasion of International Women’s Day, tried to throw a sop to womankind by saying he was in favor of including rape among the index crimes deserving of the death penalty!

Another argument for the death penalty is that “it brings closure to victims and their loved ones.” But in a “significant number of cases,” says the PAP, the death of the offender did not bring healing or closure. Instead, “what seem to be therapeutic for victims’ families are to make sense of what happened to their loved one, to make meaning out of their unpleasant experience, and to construct an empowering and restorative narrative.”

Killing in our name is not the solution to crime, especially killing by the state.

————