13 Dec
When Amnesty International began its work in 1977, only 16 countries had completely abolished the death penalty. Today, there are 106, more than half of the world`s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice. Lawmakers urged their colleagues to focus on tackling the root causes of crime and drug use, rather than pushing for a reinstatement of the death penalty. They also stressed the need to give priority to the reform of key institutions of the criminal justice system, including the police and the judiciary. Amnesty International believes that the death penalty violates human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Today, in its third and final reading, the Philippine House of Representatives passed Bill 4727, a measure proposed by President Rodrigo Duterte`s majority coalition to reinstate the death penalty. Lawmakers noted that the law, if passed and signed, would violate the Philippines` international legal obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the country ratified in 2007 and is committed to permanently abolishing the death penalty within its borders. International standards increasingly view the death penalty as a barbaric and outdated form of punishment, lawmakers said. – www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/About_the_HRI/HRI_Activities/death_penalty_resolution.aspx It is used as a political instrument. Authorities in some countries, such as Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents. November 29, 2017: The PGA hosts a side event at its 39th Annual Forum in Milan, Italy, titled “Moving Away from Capital Punishment in Asia”.
The event focused on issues and arguments that are particularly relevant to the abolitionist movement in Asian countries. This gave PGA member Senator Antonio Trillanes the opportunity to share his experiences with other Asian parliamentarians and discuss how best to combat the reintroduction of the death penalty in abolitionist countries. www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%20penalty.pdf The overwhelming majority of the Duterte administration in Congress and ongoing efforts to promote its campaign against illegal drugs mean that the Judiciary Committee is likely to support death penalty legislation. Duterte`s “war on drugs” has resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 people at the hands of the Philippine National Police and thousands more at the hands of unidentified gunmen. Accountability for these killings by the police, including those who harassed children, is virtually non-existent. The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution. Methods of execution• Beheading• Electric shock• Hanging• Lethal injection• Shooting For years, the Philippines has killed people, especially in so-called heinous crimes. But President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo abolished the death penalty in 2006 under pressure from the Catholic Church. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because it is inherently cruel and irreversible. The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, but some countries continue to sentence and execute juvenile defendants.
These executions are small compared to the total number of executions documented each year by Amnesty International. everyone else because of his lack of emotions. Meursault was a heartless person in the eyes of some. It was quite easy for the court to impose the death penalty on him. They knew that if he didn`t even care about his mother`s life, he wouldn`t care about other people`s lives. He wouldn`t even care about his own. At his first meeting with the magistrate, “he almost shook his hand, but just in time he remembered that he had killed a man” (64). He didn`t care about the life he had just made. The passage by the Philippine House of Representatives of a law to reinstate the death penalty puts the country on a dangerous path that is in flagrant violation of its obligations under international law, said Amnesty International.
Philippines/the 1987-Constitution-of-the Republic of the Philippines-Article-ii/ In 2007, the Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges countries to abolish the death penalty. Countries parties to the Covenant and Protocol cannot reintroduce the death penalty without violating their obligations under international human rights law. This would probably lead to more than worrying statements from foreign trading partners such as the European Union. However, after his election in May 2016, the new president, Rodrigo Duterte, publicly spoke out in favor of reinstating the death penalty. On March 7, 2017, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill. Senators, including PGA members, spoke out against efforts to reinstate the death penalty and successfully blocked the passage of the law. The Philippines ratified the 1986 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Second Optional Protocol concerning the abolition of the death penalty (ICCPR-OP2) in 2007. This deters bad people from committing heinous crimes. One of the reasons why the death penalty is in favour of the death penalty is its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime.
According to supporters of the death penalty, potential criminals will be afraid of such harsh punishments and, therefore, they will be reluctant to commit crimes such as rape and murder. The Organisation`s work against the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaigning projects in Africa, Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe and Central Asia; strengthen national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the adoption by the UN General Assembly of resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and exert pressure on cases that are about to be implemented. We also support the actions and work of the abolitionist movement at the national, regional and global levels. “The laws and policies of all ASEAN countries, with regard to human rights and in particular the abolition of the death penalty, will of course have a huge and positive snowball effect in the region.” It is discriminatory. The burden of the death penalty is disproportionately borne by persons from a disadvantaged socio-economic background or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes, for example, having limited access to legal aid or being at a greater disadvantage in their experience with the criminal justice system. “There is no other solution: the reinstatement of the death penalty means a new offensive in the Philippine war against the poor. When it comes to imposing death sentences, the poor suffer disproportionately because they cannot afford to compete in our paid legal system,” he added. The introduction of the death penalty will mean shedding more blood in the name of Duterte`s “war on drugs.” This will further plunge the Philippines into an illicit abyss. And the government will lose its credibility and influence to negotiate on behalf of Filipinos who risk execution abroad.
Today, we call on the Philippine Senate to reject all proposals to reinstate the death penalty. Ask our senators to recognize that the death penalty does not deter all forms of crime and contributes to a culture that constantly devalues life. Republic Act No. 7659 provides that a criminal convicted of a heinous crime through due process must be executed. This law protects the accused, guilty or not, in order to have the freedom to testify and prove his innocence. When deciding on an offender`s case, particular attention is paid to this point before the death penalty is imposed. The Supreme Court`s decision cannot be made immediately, as many factors must prove whether the man is guilty and deserves the death penalty. Amnesty International rejects the death penalty for all crimes and in all circumstances.
Under international law, the death penalty must be limited to the most serious crimes, and drug-related offences do not reach this threshold. Nor is there any evidence that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect. Successful ban on the death penalty for people with mental illness, arguing that they do not know what they are capable of or what the consequences would be. “The death penalty for drug suspects, such as extrajudicial executions, violates international law, deprives people of the right to life and disproportionately targets the poor,” said Champa Patel. In 2009, the crime rate rose again after the introduction of the death penalty. “As legislators across Southeast Asia, we oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines and call on our colleagues in the Philippine Congress to reject the bill currently before them to legalize the practice.