|
|
Position of the Philippine Hierarchy
|
|
The Philippine Bishops have taken a position in complete harmony with the universal Magisterium. As early as 1979, when the CBCP was invited to a committee hearing on Parliamentary Bill No. 543 entitled: An Act Abolishing Death Penalty, the Philippine Bishops took a firm stand against the death penalty. They pointed out that whether death penalty is called for or not depends largely on two things:
|
1) Is death penalty the only efficient and morally possible means to safeguard the life and wellbeing of the community? 2) How has the public conscience or public opinion developed? The CBCP then endorsed Parliament Bill No. 543, adding that adequate and effective reformative measures, more than merely punitive ones, should be introduced in our penal system, and that intensified and consistent efforts should be taken against everything that encourages delinquency. 1. In 1992, in the midst of discussions to restore capital punishment for heinous crimes, the CBCP reiterated it s stand in its July 4, 1992 Statement on the Non-Restoration of the Death Penalty. The Bishops pointed out that "the abolition of the death penalty is consistent with out stand for life, which we want to be protected and enhanced from conception to its natural end. "The statement also said that human life and the right to it are better defended by abolishing the judicial authorization to impose the death sentence. 2. The Catechism for Filipino Catholics gives a detailed justification for the Church's stand No. 1041 states. "The three traditional reasons for punishing criminals seem to be lacking in the case of execution. First is retribution, or the vindication of the rights of the victim Capital punishment, rather than vindicating rights seems to satisfy a spirit of vengeance or revenge, thus perpetuating the cycle of violence. Second, reform or rehabilitation of the criminal. Obviously capital punishment, by taking the criminal's life, destroys any chance for reform. Third, deterrence or discouraging others from committing the same crime. Surprisingly enough, there is no conclusive proof that capital punishment also deters others from serious crime. "The Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines in 1979 supported abolishing the Death Penalty, and this stand against capital punishment was repeated in 1991 as "in consonance with the Spirit of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ." However, the CCC does " not exclude the death penalty in cases of extreme gravity" (CCC 2266). Surely, the Christian ideal is to be able to abolish the death penalty in view of respect for human life. But actual societal conditions in some countries may not be such as to make this ideal feasible. Nevertheless, it remains a serious Christian task to work precisely to ward changing social conditions so that the abolition of capital punishment becomes an actual possibility.
"The Purpose of Punishment"The Church recognizes that the State as a legitimate public authority, not only has the right but also has the duty to safeguard the common good of society. It is from this authority that the obligation to inflict punishment for acts and omissions which disturb the order of society arises. However, the natural right of the State to inflict punishment is neither absolute nor without limitations.
The means employed by the State in the exercise of this Right must conform with human Reason and human dignity.Logically punishment should attain the very purpose for which it is made. The traditional acceptable purposes of punishment are retribution, reformation and deterrence. (CFC 1041). Retribution Punishment is retributive - it must redness the disorder introduced by the offense. Punishment, by its nature, restores justice by depriving the offender of a good of a proportionate degree to that which was suffered by the offended. Hence, the punishment must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. The defenders of the death penalty often advocate it on this ground. They claim that the death penalty actually "fits" the crime of murder. But how do we measure "just punishment"? Can retribution be equated with lex talionis or the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If it were to be equated with such a principle, then society will find itself stooping to the level of the criminals because it will then have to kill those who kill, rape those who rape, rob those who rob, etc. This point of view confuses the concepts of retribution and revenge, coloring the virtue of justice with the vice of vindictiveness. Capital punishment can be mistakenly thought of as a retributive (of CFC 1041). Retribution need not be identified with lex talionis and still embrace the principle that the severity of punishment must be commensurable to the gravity of the offense. To do this, the schedule of punishment must be rearranged in order to make life imprisonment as the most severe of punishments. We may then say that heinous crimes deserve the most severe of punishments. This better reflects retribution rather than saying "One death deserves another" - which is a expression of vengeance. Reformation Punishment must be reformative. It must contribute to the correction of the guilty offender. Since society us for man, and nor man for society, then whenever society inflicts punishment, it must contribute to the good of man. Punishment must give the guilty person a lesson and give him the chance to change. Obviously, inflicting death eliminates any subsequent chances of reform. Deterrence Punishment must deter crimes. It does so to the extent that the severity of punishment produces fear, which handers one from committing a crime. A successful deterrent must be a psychologically effective threat, and what could be more threatening than the loss of one's life? But surprisingly enough no empirical studies can support this supposition. On the contrary, there are recent empirical studies which show that the presence of capital punishment has not been a deterrent for crimes. Human Dignity An important limitation to the right of the State to inflict punishment is the natural right of every person to life and human dignity. The nature and extent of punishments inflicted by the authority must be in line with human dignity. Now the right to life is the first of all natural rights since it is the foundation for the exercise of every other human right. In order to defend human dignity therefore, the right to life needs to be protected from conception to its natural end. Hence, each and every person is entitled to the right to life - even criminals. "A human being has a value in himself/herself and is the goal and purpose of society.
|
|
|
| JOIN MAILING LIST |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| Letters to the Editor |
|
|
|
|
| Letters by Sr. Pilar |
|
|
|
|
| Love Life TV |
|
|
|
| MAGAZINE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| HOT TOPICS |
|
|
|
|
|
| ANTI LIFE ISSUES |
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
