ktmeng/mec huggingface dataset:
Topic: death-penalty

No one has been convicted of qualified bribery, qualifiedpiracy and plunder. Interestingly also, no public official has been sentenced to death for crimesinvolving public officials.Yet, the government maintains that it is effective in combatting crime. Under the death penaltylaw, 46 crimes are considered heinous and are now subject to the death penalty. It imposes themandatory death penalty on 21 crimes while the other 25 crimes are death eligible. These arecrimes for which a range of penalties including the death penalty is imposed.Some Congressmen and Senators are proposing other lists of crimes to add to the above. Some evencontemplated lowering the age of those punishable by the death penalty to include youthfuloffenders.The death penalty is an easy way out for a government in the face of a strong outcry from thecitizenry who wanted the government to stop criminality. It is being used to create the illusion thatthe government is doing something to stop the crimes when in fact it is not.Sad though it maybe, more lives would be lost unless the death penalty in the Philippines is repealed. SANTOS A. LABANPHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATESAquino administration
Topic: death-penalty

According to the 1987 Constitution,Art. III (Bill of Rights), Sec. 19.(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, theCongress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced toreclusion perpetua.In mid-1987, a bill to seeking to reinstate the death penalty for 15 ‘heinous crimes’ includingmurder, rebellion and the import or sale of prohibited drugs was submitted in Congress. 1988
Topic: death-penalty

In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty. Then Armed Forcesof the Philippines Chief General Fidel Ramos was prominent among those calling for thereintroduction of the death penalty for rebellion, murder and drug-trafficking. The militarycampaign for the restoration of the capital punishment was primarily against the CPP-NPA, whoseoffensives then included urban assassination campaigns.Anti-death penalty groups including Amnesty International opposed the bill, but the House ofRepresentatives voted for restoration by 130 votes to 25. 1989
Topic: death-penalty

Republic Act No. 8177, which mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethalinjection, was approved on March 20, 1996. Estrada administration Seven death convicts were executed during the Estrada administration before he announced amoratorium on executions. 1999 Leo Echegaray, 38, was executed by lethal injection on February 5, 1999. He was the first to beexecuted after the Philippines restored death penalty. It was the Philippine’s first execution in 22 years. Six more men followed within the next 11 months.
Topic: death-penalty

On March 24, 2000, Estrada imposed a de facto moratorium in observance of the Christian JubileeYear. He also granted 108 Executive Clemencies to death convicts.On December 10, 2000, Human Rights Day, Estrada announced that he would commute sentences ofall death convicts to life imprisonment. He expressed his desire to certify as urgent a bill seeking arepeal of the Death Penalty Law.
Topic: death-penalty

Please see Gloria Arroyo on death penalty–a timelineWhile the Arroyo administration has been characterized by a flip-flopping stand on death penalty,no death convict has been executed under her watch.Voting separately, the two Houses of Congress on June 6, 2006 repealed the death penalty law.Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346 on June 24, 2006. The law prohibited the imposition of the deathpenalty. History of death penalty in the Philippines
Topic: death-penalty

The Revised Penal Code, which was enforced on 1 January 1932, provided for the death penalty inspecified crimes under specific circumstances. Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penaltyfor the crimes of treason, correspondence with the enemy during times of war, qualified piracy,parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with homicide or with the use of deadly weapon orby two or more persons resulting in insanity, robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in death.The list of capital offenses lengthened as the legislature responded to the emergencies of thetimes.In 1941, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 616 added espionage to the list. In the 1950s, at the heightof the Huk rebellion, the government enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1700, otherwise known as theAnti-Subversion Law, which carried the death penalty for leaders of the rebellion. From 1971 to1972, more capital offenses were created by more laws, among them, the Anti-Hijacking Law, theDangerous Drugs Act, and the Anti-Carnapping Law.
Topic: death-penalty

During martial law, Presidential Decree (P.D.)No. 1866 was enacted penalizing with death, among others, crimes involving homicide committedwith an unlicensed firearm.In the aftermath of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos regime and led to thenullification of the 1973 Constitution, a new constitution was drafted and ratified. The1987Constitutionprovides in Article III, Section 19 (1) that:Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neithershall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congresshereafter provides for it.
Topic: death-penalty

Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusionperpetua.Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659 (entitled “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on CertainHeinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other SpecialPenal Laws, and for Other Purposes”), which took effect on 31 December 1993.Constitutional challengeThis is extensively discussed in the case of People vs. Echegaray. (For editing)Abolition of death penaltyOn 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346,entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”
Topic: death-penalty

Section 5 of R.A. No. 9346 specifically provides that it shall take effect immediately after itspublication in two national newspapers of general circulation. This is pursuant to Article 2 oftheCivil Codewhich provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion oftheir publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines, unless it is otherwise provided.R.A. No. 9346 was published in Malaya and Manila Times, two national newspapers of generalcirculation on 29 June 2006. Accordingly, R.A. No. 9346 took effect on 30 June 2006. [2]
Topic: death-penalty

involves therapeof a 5-year old child. Theaccused was meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a ¶child below seven (7) years old· is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capitalpunishment under Article 266-B of theRevised Penal Code. The sentence was also reducedtoreclusion perpetua, without the possibility ofparole.
Topic: death-penalty

[6] involves the murder of a victim whosuffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her chest, heart and lungs. Considering theexistence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the aggravatingcircumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigatingcircumstance, the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition ofthe death penalty law, the penalty imposed wasreclusion perpetua, without the possibility ofparole
Topic: death-penalty

Death penalty is a legal process through which, as a punishment a person is sentenced to death for a criminal offense by the state. Criminal offenses punishable through death penalty are referred to as capital offenses or capital crimes. The death penalty proponents, pro-capital punishment argues that it is an important aspect for deterring crimes, preserving law and order, and is less expensive compared to life imprisonment. They also claim that it is in the honor of the victim to award the death penalty. This is because it ensures the offenders of the heinous offenses do not get another chance to commit such crime again. In addition, the death penalty consoles the victims grieving families. Those opposed to death penalty, abolitionists argue that there is no deterrent effect on crimes, and government wrongly uses it as power to take life. They claim that it is the death penalty is a means to bring about social injustices through targeting people who cannot afford good attorneys, and people of color disproportionately. They argue that life imprisonment is less expensive and more severe than the death penalty.
Topic: death-penalty

With all these arguments, we are left to decide on what course to take, assess the pros and cons of capital punishment and decide to support or oppose it. Questions relating to who deserves the death penalty and who does not have been raised by both the advocates of death penalty and those opposed to the death penalty (Zimring 91-93). Should death penalty be introduced? This is the argument of this paper. Capital punishment, in many countries, cultures and societies, throughout the human history has been applied in the justice system; the question that arises is that is it morally acceptable? Is it justified? Both the advocates for death penalty and the opponents of death penalty have valid arguments to back up their reasons. Those for the death penalty argue that the act of capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. However, those against argue that the death penalty is only a life imprisonment and not a deterrent to crime. It is however evident that the deterrence from the perspective of capital punishment is about the murderer’s mind involving the existing psychological processes (Haag 70-71).
Topic: death-penalty

Not everybody deserves the death penalty. However, some people earn capital punishment. A person who breaks into a grocery store and steals bread definitely does not deserve the death penalty. In addition, people who commit murder for self-defense or during moment of passion. Such people according to me do not deserve death. On the other hand, a serial killer after the lives of innocent people for fun and personal gains deserves capital punishment. I support the proponents of capital punishment. This stance is informed by a number of facts and reasons. Death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Even though the death penalty is irreversible, convicted persons are often given numerous chances to prove their innocence. Capital punishment assures societal safety through elimination of criminals. A life for a life is a sensible and credible assertion. Deterrence is punishing someone to create fear among people for punishment.
Topic: death-penalty

Capital punishment is a punishment creates fear, especially in the minds of sane persons. Haag (2003) in his article On Deterrence and Death Penalty, people refrain from dangerous and harmful acts because of inchoate, vague, habitual, and most importantly preconscious fear (Haag 72). Everyone fears death, and most criminals would have a second thought if they were aware their own lives would be on the line. There are not so many justifications and evidence of death penalty to effectively deter crime than the usual long term imprisonment. The countries or states with the capital punishment has no lower rates of crime or rates of murder than those countries and states without those laws. On the other hand, the states or countries that campaign against capital punishment have not shown any significant deviation in the rates of murder or crime. The indicates that capital punishment has no defined deterrent impact. Claims that the executions dissuade particular number of murders have been discredited thoroughly by the researches of social sciences. In fact people do commit murder widely in the heat of passion basically under drug or alcohol influence, or because of mental illness, without thinking about the implications of the act.
Topic: death-penalty

Those murderers who make plans of their murder crimes expect and intend to escape punishment by avoiding getting caught (Haag 70-73). On the other hand, some social research has found that execution has a significant deterrence to incidents of murder. In addition, the implementation of the capital punishment is related to the increased murder incidences, while those against the death penalty argue that the capital punishment is used unfairly against the African Americans, every extra execution prevents murder of 1.5 African Americans. In moratoria, death row, and commuted sentences removals tend to increase murder incidences. Americans have emerged to support the capital punishment for reasons such as; the existence of minimal justification that suggest unfair treatment of the minorities, and that the death penalty results into a reduction or deterrent to crimes and saves life. Those for capital punishment believe that the death penalty ultimately deter murderers from killing more innocent people. No concrete evidence justifies this assertion. Therefore the supporters suggest that the capital punishment is a basic reminder to the general public that there is no reward for crimes. It gives people a notion that if you engage in killing innocent people then you are forced to pay a quite high price (Zimring 95-96).
Topic: death-penalty

Abolitionists, opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no need to take the life of a criminal to deter life, and that imprisonment in itself is a deterrent to criminal activities. Zimring (2004) asserts that deterring crime is only possible by frightening the would-be criminals by arrest, conviction, and punishment. However, imprisonment may not be enough for some criminals to stop committing more crimes. A number of criminals such as serial killers believe that they would never be caught and brought to justice. For these kinds of criminals, the death penalty should be warranted to teach others a lesson and instill fear in them. The advocates of anti the death penalty argue that capital punishment is irreversible, and may lead to making irreversible mistakes. I accept this fact because once someone is awarded the death penalty; there is no reverse even if they only failed to prove their innocence (Haag 77-78 ). However, the probability of making a mistake with the death penalty is very minimal, extremely low. Capital punishment is very extreme.
Topic: death-penalty

Therefore, the judicial system exercises it with a lot of care and caution. Because of the various guaranteed rights protection of people facing capital punishment, guilt must be determined by convincing and clear evidence that leaves no room for alternative justification of facts. The right to appeal is also protected for the convicts, and other privileges that ensure only rightly accused persons are awarded the death penalty. According to Haag, whenever life is at stake, trials are often more likely to be fair, and the death penalty is less often inflicted unjustly than others. Therefore, the abolitionists’ argument of making irreversible mistakes is unjustified. People have argued that the death penalty theory is correct since people are deterred from doing crimes by what they fear most, that people fear death more than any other punishment, that the death penalty is a deterrent to crimes that any other punishment possible, and that the capital punishment is humane enough and the law supports it.
Topic: death-penalty

They also argue that because those sentenced to death normally do much to have the day postponed, it proves that people fear death and therefore will avoid it (Zimring 97). Others have also said that the televised executions are more effective as people exercise more reaction to what they see than that which they imagine. It is hence hard to threaten murderers with something basically invisible, but in their minds, the death penalty is a major deterrent option. These are justifications that the death penalty is effective. The U.S establishment of the death penalty was due to capital crimes and murder. State or congress legislature may recommend the death penalty for capital crimes. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban per se on unusual and cruel punishment. However, the Eighth Amendment shapes certain aspects of procedures regarding where a jury may prescribe the death penalty and the way it must be conducted.
Topic: death-penalty

Analyses of Eighth Amendment demand courts to consider the evolution of decency standards. This is important in ascertaining that a particular punishment constitutes an unusual or cruel punishment. It is required that when considering evolving decency standards, objective factors that show a change in standards of the community must be observed and independent evaluations made concerning the reliability and/or essence of the statute in question. Although the death penalty is being considered effective in deterring capital crimes, the Supreme Court ruling discredited capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Majority opinion indicated that juveniles are irresponsible and immature. They have incomplete character development and are greatly vulnerable to negative influences. The Supreme Court deduced that adolescent offenders assume reduced accountability for their crimes. However, social science researchers point out that people do commit murder widely in the heat of passion. The reason for this may be influence from drug or alcohol, mental illness.
Topic: death-penalty

This renders little or no thought to the consequences of the act. Those murderers who make plans of their murder crimes expect and intend to escape punishment by avoiding getting caught. Therefore, the death penalty may be appropriate in such cases (Zimring 98-101). In conclusion, I support the arguments given by the proponents of the death penalty, the pro-capital punishment. I think death penalty should be reintroduced. I take this stance because I believe the death penalty serves a definite purpose of deterring crime and bringing criminals to justice, as well as honoring the victims. For capital punishment to rightly serve this purpose, it must be made efficient and more effective. The system of justice has gone through a drastic transformation to ensure only rightly accused persons are brought to justice.
Topic: death-penalty

I believe the death penalty ensures societal safety, brings criminals to book, brings justice to the victims, and deter crimes and reduce the number of criminals. From these illustrations, I believe capital punishment should not be abolished. Capital punishment is necessary to maintain public safety and keep justice shining in the society. It also cuts down the number of convicts on death row. The death penalty relieves families and friends who lose their loved ones in the merciless hands of criminals. It also solves the problem of overcrowding through a humane action. From this account, the death penalty aids in resolving a number of societal criminal issues. Therefore, I take the stance of the pro-capital punishment: I support the reintroduction of death penalty.
Topic: death-penalty

Capital punishment has been a tool of the American judicial system since the beginning of our history as an attempt to deter it’s citizens from committing acts of violence against others with an ambition for community safety. However, our system of law is too lagging and inconsistent for the prospect of death as punishment to be a deterrence which therefore calls for reform and restructure; perhaps adopting the old ways of countries far removed from Westernized thinking. Originally the sentence of capital punishment necessitated death by beheading however, along with the dilution of the name came weaker and more “humane” ways of executing prisoners and is now known as the death penalty.
Topic: death-penalty

The death penalty sentence in America does not serve as a meaningful deterrence. [P]roponents of deterrence have argued that in order for legal sanctions to be effective deterrence to crime, they must be (1) severe, (2) administered with certainty, (3) administered swiftly (celerity), and (4) administered publicly. The presumed importance of celerity of punishment is illustrated by Beccaria: An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the association of the two ideas of “crime” and punishment; so that they may be considered, one as the cause, and the other as the unavoidable and necessary effect .
Topic: death-penalty

” (cited in Bailey, 1980, p 1309 ). Many people in our country have not seen a live execution and what they have seen most often looks painless and is carried out often a couple of decades after the punishable crime leaving minimal lasting impressions. Public humiliation is a greater deterrence; public hangings and canings have a greater impact on crime rates. “Worldwide, fewer than half of all nations allow the death penalty . . . Internationally, attention has focused on those nations where executions are relatively common, such as China and Iran . . . In the United States . . . pressure to abolish capital punishment has grown, both at home and abroad.” (Schaeffer, 2009,p175-177) The penalty needs to be reformed not abolished.
Topic: death-penalty

The eighth amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment suggesting that executions should be humane and not cause undue pain, however since the rights of the victim were taken with force and brutality the criminal-killers should not be afforded comfort and privacy in compliance with their sentence to death. I agree with what Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in a speech, “The…traditional Asian value system . . . places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual…In criminal law legislation, our priority is the security and well being of law-abiding citizens rather than the rights of the criminal. . .”(Tan, 2002) During a visit to Singapore, which practices public caning and sends prisoners to the gallows, I felt secure that no harm would befall me and I was never more afraid to J-walk. The guidelines for caning is spelled out very clearly; the number of lashes for each crime and humiliating public displays leaves no room for their society to act out of ignorance. The marks the caning leaves is a permanent reminder therefore, deterrent to breaking the law.
Topic: death-penalty

Youths who have been convicted of violent crimes should be subject to the death penalty as well. Although “every country on earth has ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the death penalty for juvenile offenders, with two exceptions: Somalia, which effectively has no government, and the US. Even China, one of the world’s most enthusiastic criminal-killers, recently banned juvenile executions.” (Beiser, 1999)
Topic: death-penalty

However, crime punishment should not be imposed based on age if it is a crime that resulted out of deliberation. If an eleven year old was malicious enough to plot and commit murders of his parents or peers that same eleven year old should be punished as if he were 35. Perhaps if youths were exposed to the physical consequences of their actions the desire or idea to commit such crimes would yield deterrence. Americans and our criminal justice system would benefit from revisiting what is in the Nations best interest and resist pacifying those that insist perpetrators of violence be given the very rights to die peacefully which they violently stole from their victims. There will continue to be high crime rates as long as there is no deterrent; or certainty that swift, humiliating and painful justice will undoubtedly occur.
Topic: death-penalty

1. Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent to crime? a. No because most people that commit the crimes which make them eligible for the death penalty probably act prior to thinking out consequences and those that do obviously do not believe they will be caught or held accountable. “[P]roponents of deterrence have argued that in order for legal sanctions to be effective deterrence to crime, they must be (1) severe, (2) administered with certainty, (3) administered swiftly (celerity), and (4) administered publicly.
Topic: death-penalty

The presumed importance of celerity of punishment is illustrated by Beccaria: b. An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the association of the two ideas of “crime” and punishment; so that they may be considered, one as the cause, and the other as the unavoidable and necessary effect… Delaying the punishment serves only to separate these two ideas, and thus affects the minds of the spectators rather as being a terrible sight than the necessary consequences of a crime, the horror of which should contribute to heighten the idea of punishment.”(p. 1309) c.Our judicial system is not swift nor are the executions public.
Topic: death-penalty

3. What is your position on the death penalty- should it be legal or should it be abolished? a. Reformed b. Needs to be in the public eye and seen as a certainty in order to have impact. c.Should be painful and something to be feared instead of looking like a peaceful sleep. d.The penalty needs to be reformed not abolished. The eighth amendment states that executions should be humane and not cause undue pain, however since the rights of the victim were taken with force and brutality the criminal-killers should not be afforded comfort and privacy in compliance with their sentence to death.
Topic: death-penalty

4.Should youths who have been convicted of violent crimes be subject to the death penalty? a. Yes- Although “every country on earth has ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the death penalty for juvenile offenders, with two exceptions: Somalia, which effectively has no government, and the US. Even China, one of the world’s most enthusiastic criminal-killers, recently banned juvenile executions,” 5. Why or why not?
Topic: death-penalty

The question addressed by David Bruch’s May 20, 1985 article “The Death Penalty” from The New Republic regards whether capital punishment is just or unjust. In this article, Bruck believes that capital punishment is wrong and that Edward Koch misuses the issue. The tools used by Bruck to address this issue are ineffective. Bruck first attempts to define Koch’s point of view and claims that capital punishment does not work. Next he uses his reinterpretation of Koch’s specific example of J.
Topic: death-penalty

Following this, he then uses a specific example intended to demonstrate that states are trying to execute criminals who may be mentally ill. Bruck goes on to use another specific example intended to demonstrate the flaws in the justice system. He then also reinterprets Koch’s use of Bedeau. Frome here, he uses a specific example intended to demonstrate that possibly innocent people have been executed. Bruck follows this up by using another specific example that the death penalty has been used arbitrarily.
Topic: death-penalty

Near the end of his essay, he claims that the death penalty is a waste and that it does not work. He goes on to also claim that support for the death penalty comes from frustration and rage. Bruck concludes his essay by making an analogy that the lynch law is comparable to the death penalty. Bruck reinterprets Koch’s example of J. C. Shaw. He claims that Koch mistakenly writes that Shaw’s statement “came in the form of a plea to the governor for clemency but rather Shaw made it only seconds before his death .
Topic: death-penalty

What also makes Bruck’s claim questionable to the average reader is that fact that when attacking what Koch had said, he misquotes Koch’s statement of it being “a curiosity of modern life that we find ourselves being lectured on morality by cold-blooded killers”. Bruck also reinterprets Koch’s use of Bedeau and claims that “the state ventually admitted error” in some four hundred cases and goes on to say “Of course, very few of these cases involved actual executions. ”
Topic: death-penalty

The fact that Bruck uses the term “very few” rather than using a specific number because using a specific number will definitely hurt his point. If Bruck were to say that only 2 out of the 400 admitted error, that makes his argument very weak because it only indicates that 0. 5% of admitted errors are actually executed which is arguably a very low number. It is very much different than if he were to say that 100 of the 400 admittvoled errors were executed.
Topic: death-penalty

The authors argue that “Public opinion on the death penalty show that while most Americans recognize the problem of race and class bias, they do not view such discrimination as a reason to oppose the death penalty” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 5). Fiscal cost is another way in which death penalty argument has changed. In the past it was thought that it was cheaper to execute an inmate than to support him for the rest of his life. Research has established that death penalty system costs several times more than the punishment of life in prison without parole. They also include the costs both the trial and for the lengthy appeals that are necessary before an execution can be authorized” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 5). “Death penalty retentionists now admit that as long as we use the death penalty, innocent defendants will occasionally be executed” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 6). This is another argument that has change in the last 25 years. In the past, supporters of the death penalty thought that such cases were odd and unlikely to be committed.
Topic: death-penalty

Today, the argument is not whether this happens or not, but weather the benefits of the death penalty outweighs the possibility of this error. The authors describe retribution as “the most important contemporary pro-death penalty argument” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 7). According to this view, those who committed really bad crimes, like homicide, should be executed just because they deserve it; life without parole is just not enough. Those who believe in the death penalty have long used this argument to support the death penalty.
Topic: death-penalty

Opponents to the capital punishment argue that the death penalty offers much less to the families of the victims that what it appears. The authors discuss how research has found that life in prison, and life on death row in particular, can be even worse than execution. They argue that it is impossible to calculate how much of any given punishment a criminal deserves and therefore, this decision becomes “more a moral problem and less a criminological issue” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 8).
Topic: death-penalty

The history of the death penalty was extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in People vs. Echegaray.[1] As early 1886, capital punishment had entered the Philippine legal system through the old Penal Code, which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870. The Revised Penal Code, which was enforced on 1 January 1932, provided for the death penalty in specified crimes under specific circumstances. Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penalty for the crimes of treason, correspondence with the enemy during times of war, qualified piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with homicide or with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons resulting in insanity, robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in death.
Topic: death-penalty

A.) No. 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Law, which carried the death penalty for leaders of the rebellion. From 1971 to 1972, more capital offenses were created by more laws, among them, the Anti-Hijacking Law, the Dangerous Drugs Act, and the Anti-Carnapping Law. During martial law, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866 was enacted penalizing with death, among others, crimes involving homicide committed with an unlicensed firearm. In the aftermath of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos regime and led to the nullification of the 1973 Constitution, a new constitution was drafted and ratified.
Topic: death-penalty

The 1987 Constitution provides in Article III, Section 19 (1) that: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659 (entitled “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes”), which took effect on 31 December 1993. [edit]
Topic: death-penalty

As a result of the abolition of the death penalty, existing penalties for death were reduced to reclusion perpetua, within the possibility of parole. Here are illustrative cases: The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon[3] involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The case of People of the Philippines vs. Santos[4] involves the rape of a 5-year old child.
Topic: death-penalty

The accused was meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a ‘child below seven (7) years old’ is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was also reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole. The case of People vs. Salome[5] involves a rape of a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with the aid of a bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death, but with the abolition of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty toreclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.
Topic: death-penalty

(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. In mid-1987, a bill to seeking to reinstate the death penalty for 15 ‘heinous crimes’ including murder, rebellion and the import or sale of prohibited drugs was submitted in Congress. 1988
Topic: death-penalty

In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty. Then Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief General Fidel Ramos was prominent among those calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty for rebellion, murder and drug-trafficking. The military campaign for the restoration of the capital punishment was primarily against the CPP-NPA, whose offensives then included urban assassination campaigns. Anti-death penalty groups including Amnesty International opposed the bill, but the House of Representatives voted for restoration by 130 votes to 25. 1989
Topic: death-penalty

Section 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Topic: death-penalty

Sec. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. Sec. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Topic: death-penalty

9. How did the classical idea of a social agreement challenge diverse justice? The disparate practices of meeting out justice were forcefully challenged in the eighteenth century with the advent of classicalism. During this age, theorists, such as Montesquieu and Voltaire, spoke out aganist the French chastening code and inhumane and ineqitable punishments. Jean Rousseau and Cesare Beccaria argued for an extreme idea of justice based upon equality.
Topic: death-penalty

11. How does neoclassicalism in criminal justice differ from classicalism? classicalism argued that law should respect neither rank nor station-all men are created equal-and punishment should be meted out with a perfect uniformity and in proportion to the offense. Neoclassicalism differs from classicalism because it maintains the basic belief in free will while paving the way for entry of mitigation into criminal justice by considering three areas, past criminal record, insanity and retardation, and age. Punishment can be justified only if crime is freely chosen, intentional, and rational.
Topic: death-penalty

Secondly, some people do deserve this harsh punishment for their wicked act against humanity. A serial murderer who slaughtered dozens of innocent children, a terrorist who launched an attack that killed hundreds—can you figure out a better penalty to resort to for paying the blood these beasts have spilled? Even relatively lighter crime like corruption might result in life long imprisonment, what then, the crime a degree higher like mass murder should be punished with other than ‘an early road to hell’? I just wonder how many people in the world would be willing to spare a terrorist who blasted off 3200 lives in 9.
Topic: death-penalty

Death sentence, apparently, is not aimed against morals and ethics, it is, on the contrary, put up to preserve humanitarian codes by assuring the security of the society and the safety of each individual as it can intimidate potential criminals. Considering the matter this way, it becomes evident that death penalty is more of help than harm. Be it psychologically or politically beneficial, it contributes to the maintenance of social order. I, therefore, suggest we be for it.
Topic: death-penalty

It is very expensive to hold someone in prison for life. Life prisoners stay in prison on average for 30 to 40 years at a cost of＄40,000 to＄50,000 per year. In the beginning the murder commit crimes which has encroach on other’s right. Every year the government has to pay much money on the prisoner of life imprisonment. On the other hand, if a murder is provided by all common people, it is unfair for all common people to raise the murder who is a killer.
Topic: death-penalty

We work hard in the world, why do we have to pay our salary to a murder? Nothing the murder done, but the crime does. It seems too ridiculous to raise a murder who makes a big mistake for a life. Second, the death penalty can frighten and hinder committing crime. To prevent people not to take other people easily, they should know they would die if they kill somebody. For the investigation, enforcing the death penalty can save eighteen people’s life. Another reporter shows that the Korea has abolished the death penalty for seven years, but the crime rate has been increase.
Topic: death-penalty

The important of death penalty can’t be ignored, and the death penalty has the position can’t be waved. The existence of death penalty warns people not to commit serious crimes easily, and prevent the crime rate increase. Third, the death penalty consoles the people’s psychology. Some people think that anyone has no right to take away other’s life, even to punish the prisoner. I agree that life is a valuable present which God gives us. So the life is very important for us. Otherwise, a murder who offended other’s the valuable right, he is not be excused. A murder may take more over one life. The same, he takes so many valuable present that he can’t be excused.
Topic: death-penalty

Then we don’t punish him, and give him s chance to live. Who can give the chance for the victim to live? Finally, we don’t need to pay so much society resource to imprison a murder, and the government can use the money in education and improving the society. The power of executing the death penalty is a warning to tell people not to murder others. The human right is very valuable, so we can’t take other’s life easily. Enforcing death penalty is a way to confess the relatives of dead people. It stands for the justice of the society. So the death penalty cannot be abolished in this society.
Topic: death-penalty

Athletic boosters who bribe incoming college freshman to play for their university are subject to a punishment called the “Death Penalty”, a punishment for a one season team probation from engaging in any game play. In the early 1980’s, a university from Texas rose from the shadows and soon became the best team in the Southwest Conference, with a 45-4-1 record. What contributed to their victory included complimentary residences and automobiles, with some monetary reward for every win in the season.
Topic: death-penalty

The Southern Methodist University 1986 “Death Penalty” was a fair punishment because during the season, SMU Athletic Boosters cheated the system by bribing the best players and having government figures getting involved, yet the effects of the death penalty raises speculation about whether SMU was guilty of receiving the death penalty. The Southern Methodist football team deserved the death penalty because of their athletic booster’s use of bribery to recruit the best players in the nation. Southern Methodist University, a private university located in Dallas, Texas, is not one that many people hear of.
Topic: death-penalty

Despite being located in a big town with a boom in economy, SMU was a long shot from being the conference champion. They needed someone to bring them back from a shadow of tough losses during the 1960s and 1970s, not to mention the competition they had to face while being in the Southwest Conference. Big name schools like The University of Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech were some of the best college football teams in the country. The SMU recruiting department wanted their football team to change from being nobody to somebody.
Topic: death-penalty

In the early 1980’s, SMU stepped onto the Texas map to become the greatest team in ollege football at the time. One of the first recruits for the 1979 season was high school senior Eric Dickerson. One of the best runningbacks in Texas, Dickerson had been recruited by universities like University of Texas, Texas A&M, and SMU. Setting his eyes to play for Texas A&M, Dickerson abruptly decided to play for SMU the fall of 1979, after being convinced from coach Ron Meyer that Dickerson would walk out of SMU and become a millionaire. Rumors floated that Dickerson also received a Pontiac Trans Am in the deal to play for SMU, but Dickerson has not stated whether that is true.
Topic: death-penalty

After signing Dickerson, at the last second, SMU also signed runningback Craig James. This new class of freshman soon became one of the most talented football teams in all of Texas. When the Mustangs played number two ranked University of Texas, the team brought their first victory after 13 straight losses, putting SMU on the face of the Texas map. These victories soon brought speculation to the NCAA of 29 violations, and furthermore probation for the 1981 season, including not being able to play in a bowl game for the 1981 season.
Topic: death-penalty

After the season, Coach Ron Meyer took a job as head coach of the New England Patriots, arising speculation that Meyer might be leaving just in time before the Mustangs would get caught for something else by the NCAA. After Meyer’s departure, new stories began to circulate in the 1983 season after SMU began to recruit players from outside of the state, including Sean Stopperich, a student from Pittsburg. SMU reportedly offered Stopperich $5,000 for signing with SMU along with an apartment complex for his family outside Dallas.
Topic: death-penalty

Things began to falter for Stopperich when he began to feel homesick and family issues began to accumulate. That did not stop the SMU athletic boosters from giving Stopperich everything he needed. Unfortunately for the university, Stopperich was still upset at his lack of playing time due to his constant injuries and decided to move back to Pittsburg. That’s when the NCAA began to investigate. SMU’s misdemeanor actions of bribing players to make them stay so that they could get championship titles and bowl games proved to be hazardous to themselves and their reputation with the NCAA.
Topic: death-penalty

It was clear that SMU was putting themselves in some deep water with their use of money to get what they wanted, when they wanted it. Many times, alumni like to keep in touch with their alma maters by sticking close to what happens at the university and keeping secrets about their actions. That is what SMU chairman Bill Clements did for years. Clements had a long history behind him, being the governor for the State of Texas, the first Texas Republican in years. In 1985, Clements issued a board meeting with SMU athletic boosters about the situation arising from looming NCAA officials.
Topic: death-penalty

They decided that SMU athletes were to receive a payment for playing on the team, which would stop bribing players firsthand in the signing process. Clements made an attempt to hide the scandal by firing nine SMU athletic boosters, including big name booster Sherwood Blount. Clements said that now with this out of the way, the NCAA can now get off the case about their misdemeanors. It was too late to hide the damage, though. Sean Stopperich had admitted to NCAA officials that SMU boosters had paid him more than $11,000 to play football at SMU.
Topic: death-penalty

SMU had been penalized with “no issuing scholarships the first year to incoming players, and only 15 the second year of probation along with no bowl games. ” Clements stated that with every possible effort this will not happen again under his watch. Governor Clements stated that the payments had to end, yet only to incoming players. Current players could still receive monetary rewards for playing. Getting the governor involved was an accumulating blow to the team, because it was powerful people who were dedicated to making sure they would make things right and progressive despite what the consequence may be.
Topic: death-penalty

For Bill Clements, it was his destiny to make sure SMU could be the top team and continue a legacy of victory, but it was also a turn for the worse and a bigger exposure to SMU’s cheating to the NCAA because now there is not just an alumni involved, there is a gubernatorial candidate involved. In the continual recruiting process, SMU attempted to keep their secrets behind closed doors by lying to NCAA officials when presented a case against former SMU player David Stanley, who told NCAA that he was getting paid $25,000 to sign with SMU as well as $750 per month in salary.
Topic: death-penalty

When Stanley was caught using drugs and alcohol while playing football, SMU gave Stanley the boot. That created tension that caused Stanley to spill the secret about his hidden job of playing football that SMU had offered him. Along with illegally paying Stanley to play for them, SMU also violated their probation of issuing scholarships. After multiple violations of NCAA laws, a new law was created simply known to many as the “Death Penalty. ” The death penalty meant the end.