Death Penalty Negative Side 1st Speaker 564n5v

DEATH PENALTY NEGATIVE SIDE 1ST SPEAKER Interpellation questions: 1. Do you know that Quezon City, Manila City and Makati City are the top 3 richest cities in the Philippines according to the Department of Finance – Bureau of Local Government Finance 2015 data? 2. Do you know that those Cities mentioned are also included in the 2015 list of top 10 cities with the highest ed index crime rates according to the Bureau of Police? 3. So with the 1st two questions asked, do you agree that there is no direct relationship between economic progress and ed data of crime rates? 4. Are you aware that Davao City is the top 4 City with the highest index crime according to the latest data of Philippine Statistics Authority posted on their website which is a 2014 data? 5. But are you also aware that Davao City is considered the 4 th safest City in the whole world according to survey site Numbeo.com in 2015? 6. So with the 4th and 5th questions asked, do you agree that there is no direct relationship between peace and order and, ed data of crime rates? 7. Do you have any historical proof to show that death penalty has lessen crime rates over the past decades? 8. Do you know there was none because there is no clear cut evidence that death penalty is the solution to decrease crime rates? 9. Are you aware that it was during Benigno Aquino III where we don’t have death penalty, the Philippines has experienced the highest economic growth for the past 6 years? 10.Have you already experienced losing an immediate family member because of a murderer? 11.Therefore, you don’t have any idea how painful it is to experience such tragic event? Well, I will tell you, there are no enough words that can explain when our family lost my brother because of a murderer but I will tell you, despite of our deepest grief and immeasurable sorrow we never succumb to the temptation to take revenge because the only thing that will comfort a family who lost a dear loved one are the words of God and nothing more.

Formal Debate SPILL

It is only when you experience where you can best present facts and it is only facts of history where we can understand the glimpse of the future. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Pauline August Fernandez, on the side negating the issue of death penalty restoration in the Philippines. The negative side of the house will present 3 main points on why we negate on the issue of death penalty: -

I as the first speaker will tackle about the irrelevance of death penalty issue in the Philippines for it is unjustifiably

-

expensive; The second speaker of this side of the house will talked about the issue of “death penalty does not deter crime effectively”

-

based on statistics; and, Our last speaker will talk about the practicability of the existing Philippine Provisions or Laws that will sensible alternatives rather than the implementation of death penalty.

Give me some proof that the Philippines has enough resources or even just a budget that would your claim that the Philippines is capable of pursuing death penalty as capital punishment for heinous crimes and if ever you have it their please at some point present facts about the sustainability issue of death penalty with regards to the current Philippines economic situation, then maybe you can at a little way convince me to your side of the house or simply show me any reliable proof of that “warehouse of money” that the Philippine possesses specifically for the restoration of death penalty. Well maybe you can argue that it is cheaper to do away and be done with a criminal rather than to house and feed them for the rest of their natural lives. Well I will lay down the facts of my research that aside from your barbaric point of view “IT IS NOT cheaper” because the general

statistics showed that the death penalty is three times more expensive than life imprisonment.

The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs. Since there is no reliable historical data in the Philippines available in the internet and other general periodicals, let me use the American costing of death penalty as widely used in intelligent discourses. Here are some specifics from Washington State, which has a very careful and involved system for capital punishment. State vs. Gonzalez, murder of a police officer: Costs were at ($481,576 or ₱21.7 million) when it was determined that the defendant was incapable of premeditated intent and the death penalty was dropped. This allowed a simpler, quicker trial of one month. Well, consider that one, conviction of death penalty was not even given and the trial only last for a month but it already cost that much. State vs. Rupe, death penalty sought: Costs have exceeded one million dollars or around ₱44.0 million, and there is still a possibility of appeal and more cost. Four aggravated murder trials with death penalty lasted an average of 40.25 months, with an average cost of $433,262 or ₱19.1 million. Nine aggravated murder cases with death penalty lasted an average of 23.5 months, with an average cost of $195,538 or ₱8.8 million. There are cases with the low cost of $60,000 or ₱2.6 million, but the median was about $350,000 or ₱15.4 million for trials involving the death penalty.

Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses. Well, let us consider that scenarios presented with a shorter period of time were millions of pesos were already incurred. Then how about the long number of years before a case here in the Philippines is settled. For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. I can’t imagine how the Philippines could sustain such cost. According to an article wrote by Ron Gluckman (during the reign of death penalty here in the Philippines) which won an award for Excellence in Reporting from the Society of Asian Publishers. IN THE PHILIPPINES, inmates pay for their crimes in many ways. Aside from serving their sentence in prison, the inhumane prison cell itself (Well, I can attest to that because I, myself had a chance to visit a family friend who was been charged of a felony and was later on discovered that it was just a mistake of identity) and the long number of years before a case will be given a final decision by the Court. Everything is available for a price. According to Maria Diokno, head of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which handles most last-ditch appeals for condemned men "These are all poor people in Death Row". Father Silvino "Jun" Borres, director of the Philippines Jesuit Prison Service, calls the Row a "home for the poor." A survey showed that mostly in the Row earned less than $6 a day when they were arrested. Three-quarters of them were farmers, truckers, laborers and so on. Few can afford the ₱1,500 attorneys charge to attend the death sentence hearings.

Diokno estimated that only 12%-15% of those charged in capital cases can afford private representation. "And most of these are drug cases or foreigners." Instead, Death Row inmates are served by a severely under-funded Public Attorney's Office (PAO), often with disastrous results. Condemned men say they are railroaded into prison with limited or no representation. FLAG cites cases in which public attorneys advise clients to plead guilty to obtain a lighter sentence, unaware that the charges carry a mandatory death sentence. PAO acknowledges that that most of their attorneys receive no special training on capital cases. It also notes that besides handling death-sentence cases, public defenders are involved in more than 350,000 civil and criminal cases each year, as well as millions of consultations, filings and mediation matters. While state and national politicians promote the death penalty, the county government is typically responsible for the costs of prosecution and the costs of the criminal trial. In some cases, the county is also responsible for the costs of defending the indigent. Well, without degrading the profession that I want to be with, we cannot escape the truth that because of the low budget of the government to public attorney’s office, we cannot assure that the lawyers were given enough trainings to competitively give legal advice to the accused. If I may use the words of Chief Criminal Judge, James Ellis of Oregon, United States,: "Whether you're for it or against it, I think the fact is that Oregon simply can't afford it." Another are words from James Exum, Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, agrees: "I think those of us involved in prosecuting these (death penalty) cases have this uneasy notion that ... these cases are very time-consuming and very troublesome and take a lot of resources that might be better spent on other kinds of crimes ...." Some state appeals courts are overwhelmed with death penalty cases. The California Supreme Court, for example, spends more than half its time reviewing death cases. The Florida Supreme Court also spends

about half its time on death penalty cases. Many governors spend a significant percentage of their time reviewing clemency petitions and more will face this task as executions spread. As John Dixon, Chief Justice (Retired) of the Louisiana Supreme Court, said: "The people have a constitutional right to the death penalty and we'll do our best to make it work rationally. But you can see what it's doing. Capital punishment is destroying the system." If I may borrow the words from James Ellis "Whether you're for it or against it, I think the fact is that Philippines simply can't afford it."