|
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Wenceslao: Life term vs. death penalty
By Bong Wenceslao
For a while there, I was worried the Supreme Court would reverse the decision handed down by Judge Martin Ocampo against the seven convicts in the kidnapping and murder of Chiong sisters Marijoy and Jaqueline. The seven, which included scions of the wealthy Osmeña and Aznar clans, had the resources needed to defend themselves fully.
It turned out those worries were unfounded. Instead, the High Tribunal raised the penalty of two life terms for the six to death and retained the life sentence for one, a minor when the crimes were committed in 1997. And so one of the rare moments in our justice system—those belonging to wealthy families paid for their crimes—happened.
Actually, things are still so fresh in my mind I forgot seven years was needed before the justice the family Marijoy and Jaqueline sought would be given with finality. That’s how slow our justice system rolled in this very celebrated case, and one can just imagine the frustration others are feeling in cases where justice is grinding slower.
I could not blame those who do not feel pity for Juan Francisco “Paco” Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag and James Anthony Uy, who will be in death row, and James Andrew Uy, who will spend a long time in jail. When you consider what happened to Jaqueline and Marijoy, the penalties seem mild.
This is the reason why relatives of the victims of heinous crimes who have bonded together under such groups as the Crusade Against Violence (Thelma Chiong is now its national vice president) are egging on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to start bringing to the lethal injection chamber those who are lining up in death row.
“I am happy that justice has finally come for my daughters. The death of these people will never bring my daughters back, but I can now rest because they have been given the justice that they deserve,” Thelma said. That, I would say, is the best argument the pro-death penalty lobbyists can counter those for the abolition of the death penalty.
My feeling here, though, is ambivalent. I have always been for the lifting of the death penalty for the following reasons—that it is not a deterrent to the commission of crimes and is anti-poor (experience with our justice system shows only the poor gets easy conviction). But it is hard to argue against relatives of victims of heinous crimes.
In a way, I share Thelma Chiong’s relief over the Supreme Court decision to impose the death penalty on six of the seven convicts. But having said that, I would still go for the bigger picture, and that is making our laws more humane. A double life term maybe different from a death sentence but it is still punishment enough—and as harsh.
P.S. A Text Reax contributor has this contrary view on the issue: “The law may be harsh but death penalty is legal, unless repealed. So why not support the setting up of a constitutional convention so we can propose changes that fit our whims and caprices?”
Texter Jun Racho, on the other hand, shares our view on the rerouting scheme imposed by the Cebu City Government favoring One Citilink Terminal: “One Citilink is not the solution to our traffic woes. Why not just allow Talisay passenger jeepneys to go directly to Mandaue and vice versa passing Cebu City. If Manila can do it, why not Cebu?
Terminals? Panguarta lang na.
(e-mail: khanwens@lycos.com; text: 0927-4912362)
(February 5, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
