In society’s dark underbelly

“Where does compassion and our attempt to be civilized lie in that out-of-sight dark underworld of execution chambers, prisons and correctional centers?

More than politics which many who have nothing better to do have elevated to a principal preoccupation and which has divided us in irreparable degrees in cases where politics is an end-all and be-all, let’s tackle an even more divisive subject matter. Morality which is probably defined and is debated in as many ways as the trillions of people in the world seems to have suddenly permeated the current discourse, triggered by a sudden focus on our penal system and the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law or Republic Act 10592.

Most people would have a positive view of themselves and as we do, thinking up of the characteristics that might bring one closer to an ideal, one word that would certainly be included is compassion. At the opposite end where such characteristics as cruelty, injustice and vengeance might lie, save for sociopaths, society might consciously avoid being such if only to merit a degree of civility. Some would however go so far as to describe civility and compassion not simply as traits but as defining characteristics of being truly and perfectly human.

We’ve postulated these concepts of ideals against their antithesis, separating rather simplistically and thus polarizing white from black and good from bad, so that we might understand the debate on the death penalty and our collective values given recent developments in our penal and criminal justice system that challenge our sense of humanity, and specifically our sense of compassion.

Where does compassion and our attempt to be civilized lie in that out-of-sight dark underworld of execution chambers, prisons and correctional centers where we inter criminals considered dangerous enough to have wander freely among us, the greater humanity that they’ve at some point victimized?

While our discussion of morality and compassion transcends legalities and logic, allow us a starting point where, through a statute, we’ve attempted to be definitive and undebatable. Expectedly, it’s also where we’ve failed to find a consensus, hence the animosity covering from breakfast club arguments to investigations in aid of legislation and Blue Ribbon Committee hearings.

Let that starting point be the law and the specificity of its language. Allow us to clear three cobwebs. First, the definition of a heinous crime just in case there are those who might think less of drugs possession, rape and murder.

When we still had the death penalty, it was defined under RA 7659 which imposed capital punishment. Under this, heinous crimes include treason, piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, destructive arson, rape, and importation, distribution, manufacturing and possession of illegal drugs.

RA 7659 has since been amended as to the imposition of capital punishment but the definition of a heinous crime has not. Kidnapping and murder remain as heinous crimes. The original statute sought justice. Civility and compassion came in with the amendments and RA 10592 which amended Articles 29, 94 and 97 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Philosophically, with these out went cruelty, violence and vengeance.

Section 1 of RA 10592 declares that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of the GCTA. Section 2, Article 94 which refers to the extinguishment of liabilities for good conduct, and Section 3, Article 97 which delves into the arithmetic to compute for deductions must both follow from Section 1 which excludes heinous crimes.

The cumulative effect is to temper the civility and compassion inherent in amending RA 7659 with justice, not just for the offending criminal, but more important, justice for all.

Here lies the philosophical debate in our criminal system. As we pursue civility and compassion for these criminals, are we not diluting and denying ourselves and the victims requisite justice?