A).
Law enforcers who are lawbreakers - who
allow themselves to be bought by the drug lords in exchange of enormous monetary
provision. This can’t be rampant if
there’s a conscientious implementation of the law.
The
follow up question would possibly be:
Why did these law enforcers allow themselves to be conquered by these
allurements of the illegal drugs’ wealth?
Simple, because like presidents, from generation to generation (except
for a couple of them perhaps), down to the lowest post in the government, these
people who have been into law-breaking have been influenced by the
higher-ups. No one could expect a
behaved child from misbehaved parents.
The
country’s peace and order have been destroyed not because of drugs but because
of law enforcers who discard the values on sense of brotherhood and rather
develop the “I don’t mind whether the youth or the community can be addicted to
drugs as long as I am earning out of these and my family is drug-free”
habit.
Illegal
drugs which are lifeless can never conquer humans but it’s human that should
suppose to conquer the lifeless.
B).
Taking advantage of the impoverished
community – as a conduit on distribution of drugs to the users.
After
the poverty-stricken community has been duped by these team efforts of drug
syndicates and law-breakers (in the disguise of law enforcers), can’t you
notice that these underprivileged remain downtrodden because after they are
trained by these law enforcers as pushers they are killed later on (as they are
subject to manhunt at this time) while these law enforcers remain alive?
I’m
not saying that these generals who are involved in the drug syndicates should
also be killed just how the operatives kill these pushers, but If we’ll try to
measure the situation, we can say that at the end of the day, deprivation never
stops on the impoverished; the generals’ family (who are identified by
President Duterte as protectors of the syndicates) may have cried after the
exposé of the controversy on TV but the families of these pushers weep for the
death of their loved ones.
This
is not to tolerate a crime but at any rate it can be understandable why these
pushers enter such a wrongdoing because we know that they do it out of
poverty. But it’s hard to get the picture of the Philippine
National Police generals’ and their subordinates’ involvement in drug syndicates
because they’re not starving but earning and are not unlearned but
educated.
Does the
killing of the pushers justify the government’s frustration on upholding peace
and order?
Remember
that the root of the issue is poverty which is taken advantage by the
syndicates and the law enforcers. After
which, they move to another level by taking advantage of the youth’s
vulnerability who are prone to escapism brought by personal disappointments at
home, career, relationships, studies.
Killing
these pushers and users (whether chronic or non-chronic, for pleasure or
monetary intent) will never guarantee deterrence because addiction in drugs is
simply like other types of addiction (alcoholism, pre-marital sex, same sex
union, extra-marital affairs, corruption, tax evasion, pornography, etc.) which
undergo the process of temptation. Once a certain individual is caught
defenceless in any of these brought by environmental influence, parental
guidance deprivation, dispossession of values formation from the church, hopelessness,
etc., one way or another there would be a continued sprouting of another
victims.
Hence,
the healing starts from within (values formation in family) teamed up with
conscientious governance (providing livelihood for the poor communities and
recreational activities to divert their attention and vacant times to something
creative, and pounding of corruption in the government) and community engagement
(which are available in churches.
Does death
penalty which Pres. Duterte is pursuing deter drug trafficking and different
crimes in general based on these developed country who adopt it?
Iran has some of the toughest drug laws in the
world but with a high incidence of injection drug use, while Sweden does not
have the death penalty but has relatively low rates of problematic drug use.
If capital punishment had a deterrent result on
drug trafficking, this would lead to a smaller amount of drug trafficking, and
thence higher wholesale drug prices, in Singapore. In spite of this, wholesale
drug prices for both cocaine and heroin were significantly higher in Indonesia
than in Singapore from 2003 to 2006, and drugs generally were more common in
Singapore than Indonesia in this period, revealing that drug trafficking was
not discouraged as a result of Singapore's sophistication on capital punishment.[1]
Based on study conducted by Professor Zimring, with
Professor Fagan and David T. Johnson of The University of Hawaii, Singapore's
execution rate in the mid 1990s was among the highest in the world. There was a
vertical drop off in the decade after 1997 - a cutback of an approximately 95
percent. On the other hand, Hong Kong eradicated the death penalty in 1993.
The researchers discovered that "homicide
levels and trends are remarkably comparable in these two cities over the 35
years after 1973, with neither the surge in Singapore's death sentences nor the
more recent steep drop producing any degree of difference on effect. The three professors realized that “the
Singapore incident report intensifies the influence of American contentions
(that the death penalty deters) to a clearly irrational position.”
Meaning, the overwhelming effects of drug traffickers'
potential monetary profits (being the root of the continued operation of it)
override any judicious way of thinking and even the risk on death penalty. After all, these syndicates do not have frontage
in dealing with the users but capitalize the vulnerability of the impoverished
society as their runners while they are shielded in their grandeur and
mansions.
The above-mentioned research
established that over 88% of the criminologists did not
believe that the death penalty deterred murderers. In brief,
this concurrence from among the
criminologists implies that the death penalty does not add any significant
deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.
Lastly as the ultimate reference, God Himself redeems
the humanity from its abominable practices (which included different crimes). President
Duterte attack the Catholic Church for its practices against death penalty
which he claims as something that was written thousands of years ago, without
noticing for himself that death penalty came in first, practiced by the people
in the Old Testament era before Jesus allowed Himself of the death penalty that
killed Him instead of placing His creations on the cross. Meaning if Jesus
Himself did not allow the destruction of the humanity through death, then who
are human that he should exercise death penalty.
President Duterte’s clear order to the police against the scoundrels
President Duterte says “If there is a fight that could
result in your demise then why would you die? Shoot first. But only when you
think that your life is in danger.”
Nevertheless,
based on the reports, there are several shooting incidents of the drug-involved
personalities not according to fair judgement but based on art of extra-judicial
killing.
God
enjoins the government to bring fairness and brotherhood to the society
(Jeremiah 34:8-19). Inequality is the
root of violence. Isaiah 5:7 says: the Vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the
house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His cherished plant; He looked for
judgement, but He sees bloodshed.
 |
Caution: For your listening pleasure, without disruption from the web’s music, please click the YOU TUBE button to watch the video outside of the web.
[1] Lex Lasry Victorian Supreme
Court judge, Fact
check: No proof the death penalty prevents crime, Updated , http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment