INTRODUCTION

It is a fact that almost all societies in the world agrees that if a person violates the
law, he shall be punished. However, the differences appear when it comes to what kind
of punishment should be applied. The punishment of execution, administered to
someone who is legally convicted of a capital crime, is Death Penalty. The crime that
can be punished with the death penalty is called a capital crime or a capital offense,
namely we have for example murder, espionage, genocide, kidnapping, treason, drug
trafficking, and human trafficking. Some people think the death penalty is a good thing,
and others think it is a bad thing. Many people on both sides of the argument have very
strong feelings. One side says the death penalty is good because it scares people away
from doing things that could get other people killed, the other side says there's a
potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment;
the other side says that execution is murder. Most people know the threat of crime to
their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action that should be used to deal
with it and for whom. Throughout human history, governments and rulers have used
many death penalty methods to execute people, such as crucifixion, flaying,
and hanging; in the present time another ways of executing include electric chair, lethal
injection, and decapitation. Death penalty as deterrence, the use of capital punishment
as a threat to deter people from offending, or to deter offenders otherwise. But
according to National Research Council of the National Academies; a deterrent effect
on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. In fact criminology
offers no answers, despite more than three decades of research, concludes an expert
panel, reviewing studies of the deterrence effects of capital punishment. It was
concluded that the death penalty fails to deter crime. On the other hand lets have a sort
of overview about the subject matter as retribution, often it is confuse to revenge and
more fitted to vengeance. But as experts says retributivism is not based on hatred for
the criminal, but indeed the theory of criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to
the gravity of his or her crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. Thus
a closure may be understood but an eye for an eye sometimes is a fraud, a particular
heavy crime can otherwise observe goodwill for any human being needs to progress in
love and understanding.
Death penalty is immoral and ineffective, it is unnecessary for keeping our
society safe. It contradicts to the will of God, you shall not murder is the sixth of the Ten
Commandments. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", a statement from
Mahatma Gandhi which means either to punish in proportion of the weight of the crime
or to deter crime is deceptive, thus cannot give the assurance of the main purpose. But
in the United States of America, however, Death Penalty is legal and in fact currently
used by 32 states. According to Immanuel Kant in (1785), Duty is the necessity of
acting from respect for the law. In other words, duties have emerge to people as a
result of their need to respect the law. He believes that everyone should follow the law

as he states: Everything in nature works according to laws, and whoever violates the
law should be punished and doesnt deserve to be a member of the society anymore.
This implies his idea about Categorical imperative which simply means that each law
has its own method or principles to be followed by citizens (Kant, 1785). To analyze the
morality of death penalty from Kants point of view, because as its legal it implies to be
moral, moral actions need to be defined. Kant suggests that acting in order to satisfy
self-interest is morally unacceptable. If someone kills another person to revenge or for
any other reason, this action is immoral. In the other hand, if the government applies
death penalty on someone because he killed another person, this action is a moral one
because the state doesnt act in regard to its self-interest but to protect its citizens from
this criminal. So, this person who violates the law and kill another person might do this
again, that is why it is better to prevent him or others from doing such actions again by
applying death penalty on him. For Kant, social crimes which might be harmful to the
public such as murder and theft are the kind of crimes that deserve a great punishment
(Avaliani, 2004). These are the reasons and the stands of the USA, at least, to legalize
the Capital Punishment. Regardless of what their country is now, is it still immoral?
Only in the Philippines is a famous line in Social Media, but can this be
impressive? Only in the Philippines that drug lords can cook shabu or
methamphetamine, an illegal drug, inside the main penitentiary designed to house the
prison population of the country. Only in the Philippines that corruption is like a virus, a
pandemic virus perhaps. And now after office of the 16th president, only in the
Philippines that there are protests against the cleansing of criminality. The Death
Penalty in the Philippines was suspended on June 24, 2006 for some reasons, but with
the face of todays country the tough-talking president is planning to bring back the
Capital Punishment-only by hanging. In a locality in Mindanao, Davao City where the
current president country used to be a mayor, he was accused for running the Davao
Death Squad. It is an organization which do kill criminals, illegal-traffickers, kidnappers,
and drug lords, but are composed of unknown people. At lay mans interpretation this
can be a form retribution but without legality and somehow can result to deterrence, you
kill a person in return of doing a capital crime (an immoral act as for Kant) and as per
effect nothing will follow the latter. Do the Philippines really need the Death Penalty
back, regardless of morality?
The statements aforementioned were done through a tremendous and best
attempt to have a full understanding about the subject matter, Death Penalty. Its so
practical that Death Penalty is imposed to cover the common effects of the near future
because of some crime issues, but possibilities of condemning an innocent man to be
guilty is probable. Did you know that crime rates when Death Penalty is legal are high
than when its not legalized? Statistics shows that it doesnt deter crime and rather it
stimulates crime. Did you also know that we pay millions for a death penalty system?
And thus, poor suspects are assured to be sentenced to death because they dont have
the money to pay good lawyers. Moreover, almost all the criminals are rich which they
can provide most of the things that may lead them to win the case in order to be freed or

not to be sentenced to death. In addition study shows that crime is lesser when there is
a life sentence rather than death penalty for capital crimes which stated in every
countrys criminal law. This isnt indicating that death penalty must be abolished but
indeed, only stating the empowerment of the law, scientific means, edges, and norms of
ethics. However, a verdict can only measure that the Death Penalty is good for the
country or bad. Needless to say about its immorality, because