In Defense of the Right to Life: Analyzing Factors Affecting Filipino Opinion About Death Penalty IV. Conclusion and Recommendations The paper examined the factors underlying the Filipino public’s position on the death penalty, specifically, to identify who supports the death penalty and why they support it. The paper largely confirms some of the findings of previous research on predictors of support for the death penalty. First, there is a modest support for the death penalty among Filipinos, but if they are provided with imprisonment as an alternative punishment other than the death penalty, majority would prefer prison terms over the death penalty. As much as 60% are in favor of the re-instatement of the death penalty when asked whether they agree with the measure or not, yet majority prefers imprisonment (mainly life imprisonment) for the drug-related crimes tested when given the choice of what penalty to impose—the largest support for the death penalty was for rape under the influence of drugs. This was confirmed by the regression models, wherein the support for the death penalty was found to be consistently lower among those who are in favor of alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment, possibility of reform, or paying the victims/their families. It is also good to note that the strongest supporters of the death penalty amount to only about 30%. These findings are in line with the findings of Sandys and McGarrell (1995) of an “acceptance of capital punishment but preference for an alternative penalty.”60 The Filipino public’s support for the death penalty may reflect the policy inclinations of the government only because the government framed the death penalty as the only solution without providing options for alternative punishments. Second, knowledge-based instrumental factors associated with deterrence – feeling of safety and worry of being victimized by crime – rather than the experiential factors, are the strongest predictors of support for the death penalty, whether for its re-instatement or preferred punishment for the drug-related crimes. The effects of these factors on support are particularly stronger before the symbolic factors or attitudes were added, after which the effects are diminished. The two experiential instrumental factors of crime victimization and criminality in the neighborhood were not significant predictors of support, except for the crime of manufacture of illegal drugs and working in drug dens and in only some models. The results are consistent with the findings of Applegate, Cullen and Fisher (2002)61 and Hartnagel and Templeton (2002)62 that the emotions of fear or anger about crime results to increased public anxiety, and therefore increased public need for stricter punitive actions to control crime.63 Based on the survey, a large proportion of the Filipino public were worried that they or their immediate family might be a victim of a heinous crime (87%), even though a very small percentage of 3% reported being victimized by crime and 56% reported that no heinous crime happened in their locality in the previous three years. What the public consider as “heinous crime” may have heightened their fear of being victimized – Filipinos largely consider “killing” as a heinous crime, with 56%; this is followed by 37% who mentioned “rape”. Third, two symbolic factors emerged as consistent predictors of support for the death penalty – that the death penalty dispenses justice, and that people would follow the law over their religious principles. That there is a pervasive belief that the death penalty dispenses justice is consistent with survey findings that to most Filipinos, justice is served when those who committed the crimes were already being punished/or imprisoned. And the death penalty provides an expedient course of punishing perpetrators of crime. In the 2018 survey, 58% believed that showing that the people who have been proven guilty of committing a crime are punished is an essential indicator that justice is being served, compared to 51% for equal treatment of the rich and poor in court is essential, and 45% for courts swiftly deciding 60 62 Sandys and McGarrell (1995), supra note 21. 61 Applegate, et al. (2002), supra note 26. Hartnagel & Templeton (2012), supra note 44. 63 See ROBERTS, ET AL., supra note 14. 18