BEING authentic and consistent is the bedrock of credibility. But apparently, in a world infected by this virus called idolatry, some people compromise their personal positions, if not totally abandon them, or are forced to hold on to them even if diametrically inconsistent with their real positions, if only to please, or be aligned with, the views of their political idols.
One of the most glaring examples of inconsistency can be found in those who claim to be pro-life, and yet are also pushing for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Some of these people even appear to be imbued with religiosity, like Sen. Manny Pacquiao, or some pastors of certain Christian groups. Included in this subset are those who would condemn abortion, even if it is done to save the life of the mother, or when resorted to in cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest, but have no qualms about supporting capital punishment. These people justify their stance by making a distinction between abortion that terminates the life of the innocent unborn, and of the death penalty that terminates the life of a convicted criminal. Hence, what appears as a preference for life now makes a distinction between which kinds of lives deserve protection from those kinds of lives that are worth killing.
In fact, they would even further justify that the taking of the life of a criminal is in effect tantamount to protecting the life of their potential victims. This argument falls flat on its face simply because it assumes that the criminal justice system has no other alternative to keep the society safe from the criminal except to execute him. And these people further justify their line of argument by saying that executing the criminal will serve as a deterrent that would prevent the commission of crimes by other persons.
It is already fairly established in many scientific studies that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. In a 2009 study, 88 percent of criminologists said that the death penalty does not deter crime, even as 52 percent said that politicians support the death penalty not on the basis of its efficacy but on the political optics it generates for them as being tough on crime. There are now 142 countries that have abolished the death penalty. These countries have not experienced an increase in murder rates. In fact, in some cases, the incidence of murder even declined, as in Canada where the murder rate declined by 25 percent 17 years after its abolition.
In a recent survey by the New York Times, 10 of the 12 non-death penalty states in the US have homicide rates below the national average, while half of the death penalty states have rates above the national average. In the past 20 years, death-penalty states have homicide rates that are 48 to 101 percent higher than those of non-death penalty states
If the threat of death is indeed an effective deterrent, and if we grant that indeed the incidence of drug-related crimes is still pervasive, which is why there is a need to reinstate the death penalty, then it behooves us to point out that the high incidence of drug-related deaths due to the war on drugs, which has so far killed 6,600, according to the PNP, shows that it has not worked to deter the commission of the offense. Here, it is important to point out that death from police operations of this magnitude should have already had a deterrent effect on drug offenders. And if being killed while exchanging fire with, or while escaping from, the police — which is instant and without the benefit of court proceedings — does not deter drug criminals, how can the reinstatement of the death penalty be a much better deterrent when it is meted out only after the act has been weighed by a judge, and the case is even automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court?
Senator Pacquiao justifies the reinstatement of the death penalty by pointing out that even Jesus Christ was not spared from it. This attempt of Pacquiao to harvest from the biblical text his warrant to support the death penalty falls on its own sword when seen in the light of those who argue for the life of the unborn but support the death penalty simply because the latter takes away the lives of criminals. Jesus Christ was only a criminal in the eyes of those in power.
There are also those who criticize other countries for their pro-abortion policies only because these countries have taken positions critical of our human rights record, such as Iceland, a country where the death penalty is outlawed. These pro-lifers however are silent on the state-sponsored abortion policy of China, a country which is our ally, and where the death penalty is perfectly legal.
There are indeed many kinds of inconsistencies, some of which are bordering on the hypocritical. But the most hypocritical stance is reserved for those who are against the legalization of divorce, but have since benefited from the annulment of their previous marriages when they remarried. What makes the hypocrisy more gross is when it is held by people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion regardless of the reason.
Getting an annulment is expensive and is a privilege reserved for those with the money, even as most people sent to the execution chamber are poor. Those who have money can also travel abroad to have their unwanted pregnancies terminated in countries where abortion is legal.
In the end, we face the specter of rich couples getting an annulment, rich pregnant women getting abortions abroad and rich drug criminals hiring expensive lawyers to defend themselves, while the poor will have to endure failed marriages and life-threatening pregnancies, and the poor drug offender would, if Senator Pacquiao has his way, have a higher chance of facing a firing squad.
https://www.manilatimes.net/contradictions-and-hypocrisies/590490/
No comments:
Post a Comment