Executive clemency

A law each day (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison The Phili ine S!a" #$%&#%&##$ There is really no reason to make a big thing out of the reprieves recently granted by the President to some of the death row convicts. It is quite unfair to arbitrarily conclude that by granting the reprieves, heinous criminals have become more emboldened and heinous crimes more rampant. This line of reasoning simply considers punishments as vindictive deterrents to crimes and nothing more. It tends to discount the more important reformative function of our penal laws as it focuses solely on avenging the wrongs done to the victims. It also tends to gloss over the greater causal connection between law enforcement and the rise of criminality. I am more inclined to believe that rampant criminality can be checked by more efficient law enforcement rather than by foisting the spectre of severe punishment. The more vigilant and zealous our law enforcers are, the lesser crimes there will be. The image of a PNP fficer appealing on T! for evidence about a crime "ust committed is certainly not a picture of vigilance and earnestness. #ren$t they supposed to gather the evidence and look for the suspects% &ut going back to the grant of reprieves, this may be an act of compassion but it is not a sign of weakness or kid glove treatment of criminals. 'eprieve is the withdrawing of sentence for a period of time. It is one of the powers known as (e)ecutive clemency( granted by our *onstitution to the President +,ection -., #rticle !II/. rdinarily, the President e)ercises this power in case of a death sentence that is scheduled for e)ecution. It does no more than stay the e)ecution of the sentence for a time. There is no change of punishment from a greater to a lesser one as from hanging to life imprisonment. It should not be confused with commutation which is precisely a (remission of a part of the punishment0 a substitution of a less penalty for the one originally imposed( +People vs. !era 12 Phil., ---/. ,o when the President grants a reprieve, the convict remains on death row and he is only given a new lease on life for a fi)ed period. The death penalty imposed by law for the heinous crime committed by the convict, stays. 3ranting reprieve to prisoners is an act of magnanimity on the part of one given such power in favor of those in more or less hopeless situations. #ny one given the privilege to e)tend such merciful act can not be faulted for doing so. It may simply be an e)pression of compassion and sympathy inherent in every person or the actual e)ercise of that power granted by law towards the achievement of a "ust and peaceful society. It is quite uncalled for to brand such act of mercy as a sign of wishy4washiness in the fight against crime0 or to denounce it as an unfair and inequitable act against the victims of crimes. It must be remembered that the ob"ect of this clemency has been condemned to suffer the capital punishment of death by another human being who is not error4free at all. ,ince the penalty of death once carried out is absolutely irretrievable as there is no way to bring back the life it has snuffed out, it is better to afford prisoners condemned to death every opportunity to procure some amelioration of the sentence imposed. This is the very purpose of a reprieve +Palka vs. 5alker -67 *onn. -6-/. It shows how much society gives value to human life especially when it is placed in the hands of the "udges who are only human and imperfect. 8udicial records are indeed full of cases where mistakes have been committed in condemning innocent persons. It is therefore better to err on the side of life by withdrawing the sentence of death even for a short interval of time and even if that sentence appears to be fully backed up by evidence.