 |
| photo from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/802103/pacquiao-duterte-wants-to-restore-death-penalty-i-do-too |
1. In that corner and in this corner
ALAM siguro ni Senator Manny Pacquiao na bagamat ang pinanggalingan
ng boxing bilang organized sport ay maaaring noong tanggapin ito ng mga ancient
Greeks bilang isa sa mga Olympic games ng taong BC 688, nag-evolve ito mula sa
mga prizefights noong 16th- at 18th-century sa Great Britain hanggang sa mabuo
nito ang forerunner ng modern boxing noong mid-19th century, muli sa Great
Britain at pagkatapos ay sa Estados Unidos kung saan maraming taga-Great Britain
at Ireland ang nag-emigrate. Ito ay mga around the time na nagbabarilan na ang mga later-generation pioneers at mga American Indians ng Midwest at West ng North America na maaari nating tawaging Koboy Age sa
westward movement na ito ng mga bagong Amerikano, just for purposes of our non-cinematic
discussion. Sa panahong ito, marami ring outlaws ang binitay (literally hanged)
pagkatapos mahuli ang mga ito ng mga sheriff ng paparami nang pioneer towns.
Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Pero, Senator Manny Pacquiao, bago tayo bumalik sa topic ng mga koboy, may maikling wiki lang po ako rito, paki-click lang po at pakibasa (baka sakali makatulong, lalo’t hinala ko ay nabasa na ito ni Senator Tito Sotto):
Wrongful execution - Wikipedia - Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment, the "death penalty". Cases of wrongful execution are cited as an argument by opponents of capital punishment, while proponents suggest that the argument of innocence concerns the c... - EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
----------------------------------------
2. The
context of this and that
LET’S contextualize the many mobile nouns now contending in
the ring:
When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.
When you punish a child by spanking him or by denying him a hefty baon the next day, I can fully understand why you would call it a punishment or penalty, because I understand what punishment and penalty mean. But when you punish a man who hates his life so much that he thought it a nice idea to hurt people who also hate him, I don't know why you would call killing him by the death penalty a penalty, and if that really still stands true to the definition of penalty or punishment. Because from his perspective, who knows?—maybe our killing him might actually be more a fulfillment of a wish than the receipt of a penalty. And even if the perpetrator of a heinous crime is pleading for his life, would rest in peace in death really punish him? Aren’t we actually just exploiting the word “punishment” as a euphemism for the ancient decision (desire, even) to exterminate existences?
My friend H- says, “I would still kill a man who has killed other men, in order to protect others.”
Well, actually, honestly, I would, too, but not in the name of a death "penalty" or capital "punishment" but in the name of eliminating him from my vision or in retribution for my loss. The difference is here: the first (capital punishment) is exercised by the state on a legal and formal and communal level while the second (revenge) is expressed from a personal and emotional level or standpoint. And while the second (revenge) may often be surer about the culprit when the commission of that culprit’s murder is witnessed first-hand by the avenger and happened only a few seconds or minutes prior to the avenger’s decision to initiate revenge, a quick revenge therefore, the first (capital punishment after a trial) may be less certain, especially as the communal experience of everything in such trials (including a resultant belief beyond reasonable doubt) would be nothing more than simply vicarious. It’s also ironic that it’s the surer second that would be illegal while the only vicariously sure first would be the one deemed by the state as legal. I’d say that it is in this area of uncertainty that death as punishment may be checked, as per the concept of possible and irreversible wrongful execution. And, hey, lest we forget, our appreciation of the reality of wrongful execution must never be separated from an appreciation of the long list of people involved in wrongful convictions in even such sophisticated legal systems as the United States’.
----------------------------------------
3. Hindi
lang naman iisang source (or, Tsk tsk tsk)
SPEAKING of lists, I understand that all this recent hoopla
about the “restoration” of the implementation of an existing capital punishment
law is all in aid of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs.
But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
"Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.
But, interestingly, an examination of that war itself seems to provide more proof of why capital punishment’s aiding it may, instead of formalizing its “extrajudicial” messiness, be exacerbating its problems. Consider just one of that war’s questionable element and how that might impact the certainty factor of even just one death penalty, the element called the “drug watch list” (sic):
In interviews with Philippine National Police chief Bato de la (corrupted to dela) Rosa by such TV personalities as Winnie Monsod and Daniel Razon in their respective channels (GMA News TV and UNTV), the good general had been saying or implying something like this concerning “drug watch lists”, lists that the President would be wont to proudly and loudly announce in his many later speeches:
"Malayong magkamali iyang mga dumarating na intelligence reports na yan sa Presidente kasi galing na yan sa maraming intelligence sources, at bawat intelligence source ay may validation process na yan. Ibig sabihin, hindi basta-basta na kahit na anong ibulong mong pangalan ay paniniwalaan agad ng bawat intelligence agency, dahil may validation process yan. Nasala na yan."
By the way, these interviews happened before the “Drug Matrix” brouhaha, wherein the President apologized to a number of politicians for the error of their names’ inclusion in said Matrix. Leila de Lima, the President’s loudest critic whom the President’s camp has in turn tagged as the Mother of All Drug Lords, was not one of those exonerated from the list.
What else can I say, except: Tsk tsk tsk.
----------------------------------------
4. Hindi
lang naman tayo ang human (or, Tsk tsk tsk, hey-yo, Silver, away!)
MGA kababayan, sa mga naririnig nating diskurso among
government people, legislators, and supporters of this government, mapapansin
natin na may iisang pagkainis na pinanggagalingan ang urgent clamour for the
death penalty at ng agresibong war on drugs na ating tinukoy—ang pagkainis sa pakikialam ng konsepto ng human rights o
paggalang sa karapatan na mabuhay (kahit ng mga convicted na mga mamamatay-tao
na nasa death row, na by the way karamihan, kung di man lahat, ay mahihirap at tila
walang kasamang mayaman).
Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.
Ayoko nang makipagdiskusyon dito tungkol sa human rights at sa kabuluhan nito dahil nagkalat na ang diskusyon at klaripikasyon tungkol sa konsepto na ito at may mga paliwanag na rito kung bakit may ganito at bakit kailangan. Marami na ring sine tungkol dito, kasama na ang The Green Mile (set not in the pioneering era in midwestern North America but in the landscape of poverty and racism in that part during the Great Depression). Ang magiging kontribusyon ko lamang sa usapin na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng susunod na caveat sa lahat:
na hindi lang ang nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang may human rights ngunit pati rin naman ang mga taong gustong itakwil na ang ilan sa mga ito kung di man ang buong konsepto ng human rights. Dahil hindi lang naman ang mga nanghihingi ng paggalang sa human rights ang human.
SABI NILA, ang human daw ay punong-puno ng takot dahil ang
halimaw ay punong-puno ng galit. Kaya siguro naimbento ang human rights.
Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]
Kaya nung tila itinakwil ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na halaga ng prinsipyo ng human rights sa marami niyang talumpati, prinsipyo na isa sa mga civil liberties na ipinaglaban ni Napoleon sa mga monarkiya ng Yuropa at sa mga disipulo ni Robespierre para sa mga humans ng Pransya, ako ay nabahala. Sabi ko, ang human rights ay ang tangi nating armor, tayong walang mga armas, laban sa extrajudicial adjudgments ng kung sinong enforcer na gustong mag-astang huwes sa loob ng tatlong segundong trial dahil lamang nakindatan natin ang girlfriend niyang magmamani.
Ngunit, pagkatapos ng ilang minutong pagkabahala, napag-isip-isip ko, . . . teka; baka naman patas lang din ang laro. Dahil kung minura ni Rodrigo Duterte ang mataas na kahalagahan ng human rights ng bawat isa sa atin, . . . hindi ba't by converse ay itinakwil din niya ang kanyang mahalagang armor, ang kanyang human rights, at ang human rights ng bawat isa sa kanyang mga kaalyado, kasama na si Manny Pacquiao?
Kung ganun, nakakabaliw ito, sabi ko. Dahil tila may biglang open season na binuksan! Tila it's a free-for-all era na naman sa open country o kalungsuran! It's cowboys-vs.-Indians in the virgin, western regions of America before people in America ever heard of the phrase "human rights"! It's the age na uli where both the criminal and the sheriff don't have it, can't invoke it. Well, fair is fair, sabi ko! Wala tayong armor, wala rin naman sila. Fair is fair.
Ang ibig ko lang sabihin sa ating mga kababayan ay ito: habang tayo ay nangangamba na baka bukas tayo o sinumang kaibigan natin naman ang ma-extrajudicially adjudged as guilty of whatever may be written on a blank cardboard, isipin natin na hindi tayo nag-iisa, Dahil baka marahil ay nangangamba rin ang bawat tao ng gobyerno na baka bukas ay sila naman ang bigyan ng kawalan ng respeto ng anuman o sinumang paksyon o grupo ng mga halimaw na may balak silang palitan, palitan nang walang pag-aalinlangan na murahin at duraan ng makapal na plema ang kanilang mga human rights. Di kaya fear is everywhere in Congress and the local governments these days? So, sa bandang huli, baka hindi lang tayo ang kawawang mga Indians; baka pati rin naman ang mga koboy.
Well, anyway. Kung ganito na nga ang sitwasyon sa ating bagong sibilisasyon sa gubat ng ating panahon, well, . . . good luck na lang sa atin and a happy new year na lang, mga kapwa ko indios and indians in the new Pinoy Koboy Age. [S /-I]
No comments:
Post a Comment