Jesus M Elbinias
IF the anti-crime groups believe that Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban contradicted himself by saying that the death penalty law is unconstitutional and which might influence judges trying cases of heinous crimes, those group leaders should bring this matter to the Supreme Court. All parties concerned with having to do with justice by the choice of punishments may refer to the Report of the "Committee for the Study of Incarceration" chaired by former US Senator Charles E. Goodell from New York. The Committee’s work and report in 1976 were made possible through grants from the Field and the New World Foundations. That report might explain why death sentences are commuted.
* * *
The excerpts from the Goodell Committee Report say: "On our theory, the sentence is not a means of altering the offender’s behavior that has to be especially suited to his needs; it is a deserved penalty based on the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. In order for the principle of commensurate deserts to govern, there must be standards specifying how much offenders receive for different crimes. Were questions of offenders’ deserts left mainly to the discretion of individual judges, nor consistent scale of penalties would emerge: One judge could treat certain offenses as serious and punish accordingly; another judge, having a different set of values, could deal with the same infractions as minor ones. Without sentencing standards, there would be little to prevent the individual judge from making decisions on grounds other than commensurate deserts, basing his sentences on predictions of dangerousness."
* * *
"Also, general guidelines are suited for defining the comparative gravity of different categories of crimes and specifying the punishments which ordinarily apply to them. Some degree of flexibility is needed, however, to deal with the atypical cases – where the harmfulness of the particular offender’s conduct or the extent of his culpability is substantially greater or less than is characteristic for that kind of offense. We therefore suggest that each crime category be assigned a ‘presumptive sentence’ – that is, a specific penalty based on the crime’s characteristic seriousness. This would be the disposition for most offenders convicted of that. However, the judge should be authorized - within specified limits to depart from the presumptive sentence if he finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances."
* * *
But let it not be forgotten that "It is sometimes supposed that the only alternative to wide sentencing discretion is to have legislatures set the sentencing standards. Suggestions to limit discretion evoke arguments that legislative bodies are ill suited for that purpose. Historically, legislatures have shown little inclination to deal with controversial sentencing issues, preferring to leave them to courts and parole boards. On the relatively infrequent occasions when legislatures have prescribed minimum sentences, these have tended to be extremely harsh. Legislative bodies, the critic of legislatively set sentences could argue are concerned mainly with the majority of their constituents — and lack the requisite concern with the rights of the minority who are being punished. The legislature, however, is not the only agency that might set standards for sentencing. The task (including the setting of presumptive sentences) could be performed by the proper courts." NOTE: There may be hints embedded in this column with which to meet the constitutionality issue affecting President Arroyo’s order of commutation by lifting the death sentence of the convicts.
|
