1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital

crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death

penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for

murder and other capital crimes. It all started in France, celebrating their revolution,

French citizens sent King Louie XVI to the guillotine. Every Halloween day in ancient

Rome, criminals were executed in the city square. In the 1880s, in an effort to prevent

crime in the US, hundreds of bank robbers, horse thieves, and murderers were hanged in

front of the public. However, in the last half of the 20th century, the death penalty has

faced increasing opposition. Many people, especially members of churches, are against

capital punishment, and most advanced countries have eliminated the death penalty. But

in April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed the Resolution

Supporting Worldwide Moratorium on Executions. The resolution calls on countries

which have not abolished the death penalty to restrict its use of the death penalty,

including not imposing it on juvenile offenders and limiting the number of offenses for

which it can be imposed. Ten countries, including the United States, China, Pakistan,

Rwanda and Sudan voted against the resolution.

Nowadays, death penalty has always been a very controversial issue. Even in our

community, society and especially in school. Some people know death penalty as an

execution leading to death and some of them know it as a resolve to dominant the crime

in a certain society. We are now in a 21st century and some of the millennials does not
 2

even aware about the execution that can solve deterring the crimes in their society or will

be a cause to violate human rights. Therefore, millennials should aware to the execution

enable them to gives it a strong reason to make it a strong factor of being a punishment

deterring crimes or violating human rights. Awareness of the 21st century generations is

very important for the reason that they were the new individuals who will rule our world

someday, some time, and somewhere.

Statement of the Problem

The major objective of this study will measure the Level of Awareness of

Secondary Students of Pontevedra Christian School, Inc. 2017-2018 towards the

execution of death penalty.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions;

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of;

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Place of Residency

2. What are the external factors that affect the Level of awareness of secondary

students of PCSI S.Y. 2017-2018 towards the execution of death penalty?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the factors and the awareness level of

death penalty?

Null Hypotheses

There is no significant relationship between the external factors and the level of

awareness of secondary students of PCSI towards death penalty.

 3

Conceptual Framework

The independent variables of this study are the external factors (peers, family,

teachers, and exposure to social media) that affect the dependent variable which is the

level of awareness of secondary students towards death penalty.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

External Factors

Family
Level of Awareness of
Peers Secondary Students of
PCSI towards Death
Teachers
Penalty
Exposure to social media

Figure 1. A Conceptual model showing the relationships between the Independent and

Dependent Variables.

Scope and limitation

This study was conducted to determine the Level of Awareness of Secondary

student in Pontevedra Christian School Inc., (PCS) school year 2016-2017 towards the

execution death penalty. The aspects were looked into the secondary students very own

knowledge about the execution death penalty. How they going to deal with the death

penalty as punishment, and their vision how this death penalty ruled asociety.

Significance of the study

 4

The study of the execution death penalty can be a learning paradigm for the

secondary students to be more aware of the punishment law before, for the person who

commits crime, which can be also a punishment today.

Students. The goals of this study is to determine how much awareness that was present

in each student in secondary students about the execution death penalty,and to identify

each student vision if how they will going to deal about the death penalty as a punishment

in a society. It has also done with the way if how they going to face the said punishment

as being pros or cons.

Family. To identify each members relationship in a certain family. If how much does

they give an attention on each of their member, disciplined their members enable them to

not commit crime leading to the certain execution. Enable familys talk about the said

execution so that each members would be more aware and do limit their actions.

Community. To reduce murderers, robberies, thieves and drug issues in our community.

To retain the peace in a certain community and to place the community in safe. Make the

community more aware of the given punishment as the communist do a crime.

Teachers. To have some knowledge about the said execution, which is the death penalty.

Giving them a knowledge of the execution to become aware in order them to catch out

what was the death penalty all about, how this execution dominate our society, teach how

this execution cover up and changes our society. Enable teachers find out, make a move

and work their responsibility, in order the students guided leading to a right way, as a

teacher

Future Researcher.Enable researchers collect it a as a data information regarding to

their study. The study doesnt in favor between the opposing group nor the prefer group.
 5

It just works with the goal of making the subject respondents aware of the said execution,

which was the death penalty.

Definition of terms

The following terms are defined conceptually and operationally.

Awareness the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge; consciousness.

Used as the goal of the study which is leading to the result regarding to the subject

respondents knowledge on the death penalty.

Death Penaltydeath as a punishment given by a court of law for every serious crimes.

Used as component affecting the factors including peers, family, teachers, students, and

community.

Exposure the fact of condition of being exposed. Used as factors in order the subject

respondents more aware and settle something in their minds.

Peer one that is of equal standing with another. One of the external factors affecting the

awareness level of the subject respondents.

Social Media forms of electronic communication through which users create online

communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content. One of

the factors that affecting the subject respondents enable them to be more aware of the

death penalty.

Students a person who attend school, college, or university; a person who studies

something. Used as a subject respondent of the study.

 6

CHAPTER II

Review in Related Literature

According toJoeven Castro Cenizal, (Exodus 21:12-19) Death penalty is

prescribed in the Bible for various acts such as murder , kidnapping, bestiality, adultery,

homosexuality, being a false prophet, prostitution and rapeand several other crimes.

Common methods of executing criminals in the Bible: stoning, burning and hanging.

Christians are divided on both sides of the issue. Christian activist are against the

punishment, based on Jesus teachings they believe that it provide no support on death

penalty.

According to Steven Plaut, PhD, Associate Professor of Finance and Business at

Haifa University, in an April 23, 2004 article forJewish.Press.com titled Judaisms Pro-

Death Penalty tradition, wrote: The preservation of human dignity requires capital

punishment of convicted murderers. The position of Judaism is opposite of the position

espoused by liberals. It is precisely because of mans creation in Gods image that capital

punishment is declared justified and necessary. Human dignity requires execution of

murderers not compassion for their souls. Moreover, capital punishment is regarded in

Judaism as a favor for the capital sinner, a form of atonement and redemption. Ordinary

murderers are allowed to achieve atonement for their souls in their executionexecution

preserves human dignity, it does not defile it. To Islamic law, intentional murder and

FasadFil-ardh (Spreading mischief in the land) are the two crimes that are punishable by
 7

death. The Quran legislates death penalty with different methods including beheading,

hanging, and firing squad and stoning. Executions are held in public to serve as warning

to would-be criminals. A rise in crime, banned by Estrada in 2000, brought back by

Arroyo then re-abolished by her again on June 24, 2006 under Republic Act No.

9346. Dutertes stand on reinstating death penalty is not a contradicting point on

deterrence. The punishment philosophical reflection may help to understand the political

goals and feasibilities on social defense through incarceration, and retributivism. To add

on this, I would like to look on the capabilities and preparedness of the Philippine

government and its people on adapting the capital punishment into the system again.

The Greek philosopher Plato advocates the use of death penalty in the Laws on capital

offenses. His defenses on the imposition of death penalty are found in contemporary

debates, that death penalty serves its purposes by deterring others from acting the same

and societys protection by the elimination of evil persons and the assurance that they

never repeat their deeds. Death Penalty on Religion according to Quran 5:32 views

asIf anyone kills a person - sunless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the

land It would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if

he saved the life of all people . As of December 2014, Amnesty International reported

that death penalty still exists in 58 countries. The evidence of incapacitation is conclusive

and incontrovertible that it saves lives by preventing murderers from murdering again and

it save innocent lives. 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of

murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release. (Recidivism of Young

Parolee, 4, 1987, BJS) Murderers have so violated the human rights of their victims and

of society that it should be a moral imperative that they never again have that

opportunity.Executed criminals cannot murder again. Of the roughly 52,000 state prison
 8

inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted

of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions.

Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives. The U.S. Department of

Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation commit at

least 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and

49,000 robberies. Where is the compassion and justice for victims of the violent crime

or concern for future victims? Opponents exhibit overwhelming support for those who

violate our human rights and murder the people we love. With no death penalty and only

life without parole (LWOP), there is no deterrent for LWOP inmates killing others while

in prison or after escape.

Indeed, there is actually a positive incentive to murder if a criminal has

committed a LWOP offense and had not yet been captured. There are a number of

inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment

could not be increased because there is no death penalty in those states. Therefore, they

will never be punished for those crimes. Never. Totally unacceptable, by any standard.

Not surprisingly, death penalty opponents believe that LWOP is more severe than the

death penalty. 30 years of studies suggest that the death penalty is a general, or systemic

deterrent. (See works by Profs. D. Cloninger, S. Cameron, I. Ehrlich, W. Bailey, D.

Lester, S. Layson, K.I. Wolpin, L. Phillips, S. C. Ray, S. Stack, etc.) Examples: A. 1967-

1968 study revealed 27 states showed a deterrent effect (Bailey, W., 1974); b) The 1960s

showed a rapid rise in all crimes, including murder, while both prison terms and

executions declined (Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1997; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975); c)

Murder increased 100% during the U.S.s moratorium on executions (Carrington, F.,

Neither Cruel Nor Unusual); d) 14 nations that abolished the death penalty showed that
 9

murder rates increased 7% from the 5 year pre-abolition period to the 5 year post

abolition period (Archer, et al, 1977; e) A 37 state study showed that 24 states showed a

deterrent effect, 8 states showed a brutalization effect and 5 states showed no effect

(Bailey, W., 1979-80); and econometric studies indicate that each execution may deter 8

or more murders (Cameron, S., 1994). Although these studies have been produced by

respected social scientists, there are also studies which show no general deterrent effect.

General or systemic deterrence is not necessarily measured by low or reduced homicide

rates, but by rates that are lower than they otherwise would be if the death penalty was

not present.

In additional, some countries such as Saudi Arabia, have swift and sure

executions and very low violent crime rates. It is not surprising that the U.S., which has

executed only 0.06% of its murderers since 1967, does not overtly show a general

deterrent effect. While most in the U.S. would not advocate criminal justice systems like

that of Saudi Arabia, it is also very clear that the American criminal justice system fosters

the additional slaughter of its own innocent citizens. The highest murder rate in Houston

(Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions

in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any

other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701, in

1981 down to 261 in 1996 a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI,

UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg.31A). On June 22, 2016 President Rodrigo

Duterte blasted critics of death penalty to see the other side of it. He said, They say

death penalty is a deterrence to discourage people from committing crimes. But it has no

effect. People dont learn anyway. You know, that is a much fractured statement. He

supported his stand stating, The other school of thought is, the death penalty is not to
 10

instill fear, not to deter. Whether you like to commit a crime or not, thats not my

business. Death penalty to me is retribution. Duterte admitted that he is a believer of

karma and an eye-for-an-eye justice, death penalty is a way to exact payment from a

perpetrator of a heinous crime. You pay for what you did in this life, he said. Dutertes

stand was clear enough to anti-death penalty movement, to look not death penalty as a

solution to violent crime but as appropriate punishment for criminals committing specific

crimes. Details of comprehensive liberal theory of punishment are too many to study

deeper about this matter.Plato and Duterte aim and envision the ideal society that capital

punishment would not be needed, while here and now it is with utmost caution and an

exception to the rule, could be a necessity for the cure of incurable offenders, and to

protect our society. Lastly, let us ponder the message of John McAdams Marquette

University/ Department of Political Science, on deterrence quotes:If we execute

murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If

we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murderers,

we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the

former. This, to me, is not a tough call.

 11

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology

This chapter presents the research design, locale of the study, respondents of the

study, sampling size and sampling technique, instrumentation, data gathering procedure,

and data analysis procedure.

Locale of the study

The study was conducted in Pontevedra Christian School Inc., (PCS) where located at

Ibarra Street,PontevedraCapiz Philippines where the respondents of the study is active.

Respondents of the study

The primary respondents of the study that involve are the Secondary Students of

Pontevedra Christian School Inc. (PCSI)s.y. 2017-2018.

Instrument of the study

 12

The instrument used is the questionnaire which is commonly used by collecting data

which composed of demographic profile of the respondents and question verifying the

level of their awareness towards the execution death penalty.

Sampling Size and Sampling Techniques

A sample of 188 Secondary students of Pontevedra Christian School was obtained

from a total population of 355.The sample will be obtained using the Slovens formula:

n=

Where

N is the total number of Secondary students

n is the total sample size

e is the desirable error (set to 0.05)

As shown in the Table 1, 37 samples were taken from grade 7, 28 samples from

grade 8, 38 from grade 9, 30 from grade 10, 28 samples from grade 11, and 28 samples

from grade 12. A total sample of 188 will be select. Sample from each section will be

drawn random number.

Stratified random sampling was employed using proportional allocation to

determine samples coming from each section. The formula use will be:
 13

Where

is the sample size from each section

n is the total sample size

is the size of subpopulation, i = 1, 2, 3, , p

N is the size of population

Table 1. The distribution of Secondary students according to their grade level and
sample size.
Section Number of Students Sample Size
Grade 7 Paul 35 19
Grade 7 James 33 18
Grade 8 Matthew 54 27
Grade 9 Peter 36 19
Grade 9 John 36 19

Grade 10 Philip 58 30
Grade 11 Timothy 50 28
Grade 12 Mark 53 28
Total 355 188

Research Instrument

A questionnaire was utilized by the respondents to gather the needed data of the

study. Part one elicited the personal information of the respondents such as age, sex, and

place of residency. Part two gathered information regarding the awareness level of

secondary students in PCSI.

 14

Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument

The instrument used was submitted to a panel of expert for content and face

validation. After the validation, the instrument was administered to 50 randomly selected

non-respondents Secondary for reliability testing. The obtained Cronbachs alpha value

will be 0.958 implying that the instrument will be highly reliable.

Data Gathering Procedures

A permission to conduct the study was secured from the administration of

Pontevedra Christian School. The schedule to administer the instrument to the

respondents was arranged. This was done personally by the researchers to ensure the

completeness of the data.

Categorization of the Variables

Demographic Profile

Sex. Sex was categorized into male and female.

Age. Age was categorized into 11 and above.

Place of residency. Place of residency was categorize into five municipality in

Capiz namely Pontevedra, Panay, Panit-an, Maayon, and Pres. Roxas.

Extent of the influence of External and Internal Factors. Extent of the

influence of statement was categorized into:

RANGE OF SCORES VERBAL INTERPRETATION

1.00 1.80 Not at all Influential

1.81 2.60 Slightly Influential
2.61 3.40 Somewhat Influential
 15

3.41 4.20 Very Influential

4.21 5.00 Extremely Influential

Data Analysis Procedure

The data on the demographic profile was analyzed using descriptive statistics such

as frequency count, percentage and mean.

The extent influence of the Statements itself of the respondents was analyzed

using weight mean.To determine if significant relationship exist between the external and

internal factors.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data gathered and the corresponding interpretation of the

findings on the extent of influence of the internal and external factors in academic

performance.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Sex

Table 2 shows the distribution of respondents according to sex. Data revealed that

females (92 or 48.94%) outnumbered the males (96 or 51.06%). This means that the

Secondary student of Pontevedra Christian School is dominated by males.

Age

Table 3 presents the distribution of respondents according to age. Data revealed

that 2.66% are 11 years old and 97.34% are above 11 years old.
 16

Place of residency

Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents according to place of residency.

Data revealed that 80.85% are residents of Pontevedra, 13.83% are residents of Panay,

there is no resident of Maayon, 4.26% are residents of Panit-an, and there is no resident

of Pres. Roxas.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to gender.

Gender Frequency Percentage

Female 92 48.94%

Male 96 51.06%

Total 188 100%

Table 3.Distribution of respondents according to age.

Age Frequency Percentage

11 5 2.66%

11 above 183 97.34%

Total 188 100%

Table 4. Distribution of respondents according to place of residency.

 17

Place of residency Frequency Percentage

Pontevedra 152 80.85%
Panay 26 13.83%
Maayon 0 0%
Panit-an 8 4.26%
Pres. Roxas 0 0%
Total 188 100%

Extent of the Level of Awareness of Secondary Students in PCSI towards Death

Penalty

The table 5 shows the extent of the influence of Level of Awareness of Secondary

Students of PCSI towards death penalty.. The data revealed that most of the respondents

agreed that statements are very influential to them. The statement God is not in favor

with this law, which is the death penalty rank the highest. It has mean of 3.81%, which

is very influential. The statement number I know those Executions performed and

manage by our past government rank the lowest. It has mean of 3.25%, which is

somewhat influential.

Table 5. . Extent of the influence of external factor, of Level of Awareness of

Secondary Students of PCSI towards death penalty.

STATEMENTS MEAN EXTEND INFLUENTIAL

 18

3.51% Very influential

1. I have knowledge about
Death penalty.
3.25% Somewhat influential
2. I know those Executions
performed and manage by
our past government.
3.49% Very influential
3. I feel anxious about Death
penalty.
3.38% Somewhat influential
4. Death penalty is not a
humane way to execute.
3.34% Somewhat influential
5. If you kill someone else,
you deserve to be executed.
3.40% Somewhat influential
6. There is a humane and
painless way to execute a
person except of death
penalty.
3.56% Very influential
7. Death penalty a cruel and
unsual punishment.
3.62% Very influential
8. Execution death penalty
can deter crime in our
society.
3.56% Very influential
9. Execution death penalty
can reduce murderers and
thieves in our community.
3.67% Very influential
10. Execution death penalty
can control the people in
our society.
3.71% Very influential
11. Death penalty can prevent
the terrorism in a certain
society.
3.49% Very influential
12. Death penalty should be
abolish.
3.53% Very influential
13. The useof Death penalty
will violate human rights.
3.49% Very influential
 19

14. We need the Death in our

society to obtain peace.
3.52% Very influential
15. We need the execution
death penalty as threats
enable people to stop
committing crimes.
3.59% Very influential
16. Death penalty victims
violent crime and their
families do have a right to
obtain justice.
17. Death penalty shall be in 3.41% Very influential
favor in society.
18. Death penalty is important 3.67% Very influential
for those people who
committed serious crimes.
19. God is not in favor with 3.81% Very influential
this law, which is the death
penalty.
20. Death penalty is a good 3.29% Somewhat influential
revenge when you need
justice.
GRAND MEAN 3.51% Very influential
 20

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

The primary objectives of this study was to determine the Level of Awareness of

Death penalty, specifically the Secondary students of PCSI during the year 2017-2018 as

influence by the statements. In addition this study also attempted to determine the

significant relationship between the external factors and the Level of Awareness of

Secondary students towards death penalty.

Specifically this study sought to answer the following questions. 1. What is the

demographic profile of the respondents in terms of Age, Sex, and Place of residency? 2.

What are the external factors that affect the awareness level of grade 12 students S.Y.

2017-2018 towards the execution of death penalty?3. Is there a significant relationship

between the factors and the awareness level of death penalty?

The study was conducted at Pontevedra Christian School Inc., (PCSI) where

located at Ibarra Street,PontevedraCapiz Philippines involving 188 randomly selected

secondary students from Pontevedra Christian School Inc. (PCSI).

The needed information were gathered using an instrument which consisted of

two parts. The first part elicited the demographic profile of the respondents such as age,

sex, and place of residency. The second part obtained information of the extend of the

influence of external factors to the level of awareness of secondary students towards death

penalty which was adopted through the instrument.

 21

The Findings of the Study

The findings of the study are as follows:

1. The respondents were mostly male, aging 11 above, and Place of residency

mostly in Pontevedra

2. The respondents level of awareness is very influential by the external factors

and somewhat influence by internal factors.

3. There is no significant relationship between the external factors and the

awareness level of the secondary students towards death penalty.

4. Most of the respondents had low level of awareness towards past execution

performed by the government but had high level of awareness in terms of

internal factors.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were formulated.

1. The respondents were mostly male, aging 11 above, and Place of residency

mostly in Pontevedra.

2. Most of the respondents had low level of awareness towards past execution

performed by the government.

3. The respondents level of awareness is very influential by the external factors and

somewhat influence by internal factors.

4. The respondents had high level of awareness in terms of internal factors.

Recommendation
 22

Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Since the external factors and influential factors were found to be significantly

related to the level of awareness towards death penalty of the students, teachers,

family, future researcher, and community factors should be given ample attention

by their teachers, peers and family who have the knowledge about death penalty;

The teachers, peers and family should give a correct and reliable

knowledge about the death penalty. They should also be aware of the religious

background and some internal factors that can affect their awareness towards

death penalty either is it right or wrong.

2. Further study should be conducted to verify the level of awareness of the

secondary students towards death penalty using some one on one and group

discussion by the teachers, peers and family to avoid wrong thoughts about the

death penalty.
 23

The Revised Conceptual Model

INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT
VARIABLES VARIABLES

External Factors

Family LEVEL OF
AWARENESS OF
Peers
SECONDARY
Teachers STUDENTS OF PCSI
Exposure to social media TOWARDS DEATH
PENALTY
 24

REFERENCES
 25

Referrences

41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153

American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26)

Hamilton, V., &Rakin, L.: Interpreting the 8th Amendment.

Bedau, H., & Pierce, C., ed., Capital Punishment in the United States, New York, AMS,

1976.

Archer, et al, 1977

Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1997; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975

FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97,pg.31A

https://deathpenalty.org
 26

APPENDICES
 27

Appendix A. Letter of permissionn

PONTEVEDRA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

Ibarra St., Pontevedra, Capiz
Tel. No.: (036) 6340-628
Email Address: myschool_pcs@rocketmail.com

August 11, 2017

ENGR. BALTAZAR F. NIEVARES

Chairman, BOT
Pontevedra Christian School Inc.
Ibarra St., Pontevedra, Capiz

Madam:

Greetings!

We, the undersigned Secondary Students of Pontevedra Christian School Inc. will be
conducting a research entitled Level of Awareness of Secondary Students of PCSI
towards the Execution Death Pienalty as a requirement in our subject Research 12.

In this connection, we would like to ask permission from your good office to please allow
us to conduct our study with the Secondary Students studentsof the said institution.

Data to be collected and recorded will be kept with strict confidentiality. We would be
very glad if these requests will be granted favorably.

Thank you very much and more power.

Respectfully yours,
Esen Gerard Alba

Karl Anthony Brillantes

Justine Mancha

Jessielin A. Ormido

Michael Dave Plata

Grade XI

Noted:
MS. JANELLA BANGUD
Adviser

Approved:
ANNABELLE B. VILLARUEL, Ph. D
Principal
 28

Appendix B. Research Instrument

PONTEVEDRA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

Ibarra St., Pontevedra, Capiz
Tel. No.: (036) 6340-628
Email Address: myschool_pcs@rocketmail.com

Dear Respondents,
In connection with our action research entitled Level of Awareness of Secondary
Students of PCSI towards Death Penalty, we the researchers, would like to solicit
some information regarding our study. Your cooperation in supplying the needed data is
very necessary to make this study successful.
Please provide the needed information as honestly as you can. Rest assured that the data
collected from you will treatedconfidentally.
Thank you very much!
The Researchers.

Part I. Demographic Profile

Directions: Complete the needed information.
Name: (Optional)___________________ Sex: M () F ( )
Age:

Place of Residency (Municipality):

( ) Pontevedra ( ) Pres. Roxas ( ) Maayon ( ) Panit-an ( ) Panay

Others (please specify)_________

Part II.

Directions: Please rate the following as to the extend Level of Awareness of

Secondary Students of PCSI towards Death Penalty. Put A check (/) on the
appropriate column of your choice.

Description Percentage

5- Strongly Agree (81%-100%)

4- Agree (61%-80%)
 29

3- Undecided (41%-60%)
2- Disagree (21%-40%)
1- Strongly Disagree (0%-20%)

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

STATEMENT Agree (5) (4) (3) (2) Disagree
(1)

1. I have knowledge
about Death penalty.

2. I know those
Executions performed
and manage by our
past government.

3. I feel anxious about

Death penalty.

4. Death penalty is not a

humane way to
execute.

5. If you kill someone

else, you deserve to
be executed.

6. There is a humane
and painless way to
execute a person
except of death
penalty.

7. Death penalty a
cruel and unsual
punishment.

8. Execution death
penalty can deter
crime in our society.

9. Execution death
penalty can reduce
murderers and thieves
in our community.

10. Execution death

 30

penalty
can control the people in
our society.

11. Death penalty can

prevent the terrorism
in a certain society.

12. Death penalty should

be abolish.

13. The use of Death

penalty will violate
human rights.

14. We need the Death in

our society to obtain
peace.
15. We need the
execution death
penalty as threats
enable people to stop
committing crimes.

16. Death penalty

victims violent crime
and their families do
have a right to obtain
justice.
17. Death penalty shall
be in favor in society.
18. Death penalty is
important for those
people who
committed serious
crimes.
19. God is not in favor
with this law, which
is the death penalty.
20. Death penalty is a
good revenge when
you need justice.
31