In Defense of the Right to Life: Analyzing Factors Affecting Filipino Opinion About Death Penalty based. Experiential factors include experience of crime victimization and knowledge of criminality in own locality. For victimization, respondents were asked, “Have you or any member of your family ever been a victim of a crime in the past three (3) years?”. Responses were recoded, 1=victimized by a crime, 0=not victimized. Perceived extent of criminality was measured in an ordinal scale, “As far as you know, how many heinous crimes have happened here in your locality approximately in the past three (3) years?” Responses ranged from 0=none to 4=very many. Responses were recoded, 1=heinous crime occurred, 0=none. Knowledge-based instrumental factors include feeling of safety with the death penalty in place and worry of being victimized by crime. Feeling of safety was measured by the item, “I will feel safe from any crime if there is death penalty.” Responses ranged from 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. Responses were recoded, 1=feel safe, 0= not feel safe. Worry for being victimized of a heinous crime was measured by this item: “How worried are you that you or someone in your immediate family might be a victim of a heinous crime.” Responses ranged from 1=worried a great deal to 4=not worried at all. Responses were recoded, 1=worried, 0=not worried. iii. Symbolic orientations In contrast to the instrumental orientation which explains support for the death penalty from a utilitarian perspective, the symbolic orientations explain support for the death penalty as a “function” of the public’s “deeply held beliefs and values” (Vollum, Longmire & BuffingtonVollum, 2004).46 Symbolic attitudes, therefore, are political and social values and attitudes that were formed through the socialization process in childhood or before adulthood (Tyler & Weber, 1982).47 These “core values” are highly resistant to change among adults (Unnever, Cullen and Roberts, 2005).48 Nevertheless, salient political and social events may result in the shift of these core values in one’s lifetime, highlighting the role of exposure to sources of information or knowledge, such as mass media, in forming values and attitudes towards social problems. Four measures of symbolic orientations were explored in this paper – 1) attitudes on retribution; 2) belief on the possibility of wrongful death penalty sentencing; 3) opinion on whether the death penalty serves some justice to the victim and/or their families; and, 4) on whether one would follow the law over religious principles. Retribution is “the oldest and most basic justification for punishment” (Miethe & Lu, 2005),49 considering that it is embedded in the Judeo-Christian tradition of “an eye for an eye.” Indeed, retribution has been widely accepted as one of the strongest predictor of support for the death penalty, along with deterrence.50 Packer (1968, cited by Bohm 1987) noted that there are two versions of retribution.51 Firstly, there is the traditional conception of revenge in the Old Testament principle of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) – “if a person takes a life, then he or she must sacrifice his or her own life” (Lambert, Clark, and Lambert, 2004).52 The second version is grounded on the “expiation theory,” which believes that a person can only atone for a crime Vollum, et al., (2004), supra note 22. Tyler & Webber (1982), supra note 24. 48 James D. Unnever, Francis T. Cullen & Julian V. Roberts, Not Everyone Strongly Supports the Death Penalty: Assessing Weakly- held Attitudes about Capital Punishment, 29 J. Crim. Justice 187 (2005). 49 MIETHE & LU (2005), supra note 40. 50 Bohm, et al. (1991), supra note 12; James O. Finckenauer, Public Support for the Death Penalty: Retribution as Just Deserts or Retribution as Revenge?, 5(1) Justice Q. 81 (1998); Lawrence Kohlberg & Donald Elfenbein, The Development of Moral Judgments Concerning Capital Punishment, 45(4) Am. J. Orthopsychiat 614 (1975); HOOD & HOYLE, supra note 23. 51 Robert Bohm, American death penalty attitudes: A critical examination of recent evidence, 14(3) Crim. Justice and Behav., 380– 396 (1987); HERBERT L. PACKER, THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION (1968). 52 Eric G. Lambert, Alan Clarke & Janet Lambert, Reasons for Supporting and Opposing Capital Punishment in the USA: A Preliminary Study, The Internet Journal of Criminology (2004). 46 47 10