Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Analysis on Position Paper

Mia D. Gonzales

HUMSS I- Unas
Liberal Party Position Paper on Death Penalty

This argument examine the article entitled Liberal Party Position Paper on Death Penalty
written by the Senate of the Philippines. This article is about the Death Penalty in the Philippines
were the Liberal Party strongly maintain their stand against the re-imposition of the death penalty,
and support all opposition against the passage of a death penalty bill. This has been their stand
since 2006, when they voted to abolish the death penalty, and the reasons for their vote remain: It
has repeatedly proven to be ineffective, it is overwhelmingly inflicted on the poor and powerless,
it is imposed by a fallible and flawed justice system, and it violates international laws the
Philippine nation has sworn to abide by. Specifically, this analysis identifies the position of the
author, their main arguments and the evidence supporting the arguments. Senate of the Philippines
said that the death penalty does not deter the commission of crimes and it support with a statement
that numerous scientific studies conducted in various countries have clearly and indisputably
established that the certainty of punishment is a more effective deterrent against crime compared
to the severity of punishment. The death penalty has never been scientifically proven to have a
clear and substantial effect in reducing crime incidence.

The first main argument is about the disapproval of the Senate of the Philippines in death
penalty in the Philippines because it kills mostly the poor.. To support this argument, the author
state that according to the survey conducted by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) in May
2004, an overwhelming number of death penalty inmates belong to the poorest of the poor, have
only an elementary education, work in low-paying and back-breaking jobs, live with hardly any
access to drinking water and toilet facilities, and barely own property, including appliances and
vehicles. In other words, the death penalty disproportionately targets the most disadvantaged and
vulnerable members of our society, those who have limited access to adequate legal representation
and who are the most prone to have their rights disregarded or violated. The author consumes that
being part of an international community that upholds human rights, they are under obligation to
maintain our commitments in ensuring our people's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
The re-imposition of death penalty will violate these covenants and jeopardize our standing with
our international allies, resulting in serious diplomatic, political, and economic consequences.
In conclusion, the author want to oppose the reinstatement to the death penalty, instead
we look into strengthening and reforming our Criminal Justice System to deter criminals in the
country. I agree that we always stood one among freedom-loving Filipinos. We continue our
work in nation-building, welcoming ideas contrary to our own, believing that no entity --
whether State or political party -- can impinge on an individual's sacred right to his or her own
feeling, thought, or conscience. We believe that democracy is tested not as a noun but as a verb,
that democracy is perfected in the doing, in the embrace and not in the killing of the Other.
However, the death penalty is indeed controversial and has many issues with it but one thing is
very clear, if the system was flawed or simply cruel or unusual the punishment wouldnt even be
an option. Criminals convicted to death row are extreme cases where the right and constitutional
thing to do is convict them to the death penalty. To have justice and a strong control on crime
capital punishment is needed as an example to show that murder and rape will not be tolerated
here, giving civilians a sense of security and comfort that they are well protected against these
psychopaths, and giving a sense of security.
Philippines' war vs drugs: It has been bloody

This argument examine the article entitled Philippines' war vs drugs: It has been bloody
written by Nicole Curato. This article is about the presidents project to lessen the drug cases
which is the war on drugs that has been bloody. True enough, it has been bloody. Less than a
month into his presidency, over 300 drug-related killings have been recorded. Specifically, this
analysis identifies the position of the author, their main arguments and the evidence supporting
the arguments. Nicole Curato said that war on drugs is bloody because most have
been shot during police operations. Others were killed by unidentified gunmen and vigilantes.
and support with a statement the profile of the victims varies. Some are known drug pushers
those who have been on the citys drug watch list and ruined the lives of many poor families.
There are possible instances of mistaken identity, like the young scholar sleeping over a friends
place killed in a drug bust operation. Many are nameless victims, the unidentified suspects
whose cadavers remain unclaimed in funeral parlors.

The first main argument is about that war on drugs is truly bloody and many civilians
have been victim. To support this argument, the author uses the statement that whether we like it
or not, killings have now become integral to the narrative of the Philippines war against drugs.
Underpinning the Presidents tough talk on drugs is a deeply worrying public sentiment that
affirms, legitimizes and even celebrates the spike on drug-related killings. a story of a society
that has cast doubt on what were once considered inalienable principles of human rights. It turns
out that this discussion is far from settled, that there are vocal segments of society who continue
to think that some are less human than others, that human rights are particular, not universal and
that suspicion is enough to shoot someone dead. First of all, today what we see is a renegotiation
of these universal principles. We hear citizens unapologetically arguing that there are lives worth
protecting and lives worth sacrificing for the sake of a political project. Some, if not many, have
given up on the ideal of building a nation based on principles of social justice and compassion.
We are living in times of crisis, where rights and liberties are suspended to save the nation from
itself.

In conclusion, the author want to say that it seems like the discussion of crime and
punishment today is overwhelmingly driven by emotions than evidence. Even though there is no
compelling scientific evidence that war against drugs has ever succeeded, none of these facts
matter to an anxious public bent on punishing people they perceive to be scum of society. I agree
that citizens can still change the narrative of the Duterte administration. It can still be an
administration that is competent, efficient and trustworthy while shifting its gears to a firm yet
humane and creative but evidence-based approach to crime. My ideal society is one where
citizens look after each other, one where we turn others misfortune, and even bad decisions, into
redemption. However, It is good news that our police force has gained morale in performing
their duties, as they are now emboldened to go after drug syndicates who used to be untouchable
because they are protected by narco-politicians. I want our law enforcers to succeed. I want them
to succeed in arresting, filing cases, trying and convicting guilty drug offenders.It would be
tragic if what we consider as virtuous cops today evolve to be the butchers of the future. The best
assurance that our law enforcement agencies do not spiral into the use of excessive force is to
secure the integrity of our checks and balances even if this means subjecting themselves to the
investigation of the administrations political opponents. There is blood in our hands if we fail to
speak up and condone the troubling spike of summary killings. It is not unsupportive of this
government to say we can do better than this.