DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE POOR Records showthat mostof the persons underthe death sentence belong to the lower classes of society. Usually financially unable to his paid counsel, the court appoints counsel de officio for them. More often, poor persons maynotreceive fair trials due to incompetent, inexperiencedorineffective counsel. Thus, while the lawis not discriminatory, the practical effect of the death penalty is discrimination against the poor. The best example to showthe sad plight of the underprivileged is the Echegaray case where the crucial issue of constitutionality was woefully omitted in trial court and in the Supreme Court until the Free Legal Assistance Group, withits expertise on the matter, conducted extensive preparation and research and presentation to the defense of the accused. To the poor and uneducated, the lawis so complex, written in incomprehensible language. Indeed, there is an unequal balance of justice. The Supreme Court held an open forum whereinvarious humanrights groups were invited to express their views. The prevailing view of those who appeared contended that the law (Republic Act No. 7659) actually was not a deterrent of the commission of heinous crimes. On the other hand, more heinous crimes, as previously stated in this policy study have increased. It should be noted that in the twocases where the Supreme Courtaffirmed the death sentences, the Supreme Court has not been unanimous. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Doesthe death penalty deter the commissionof heinous crimes? There is no study in the world to showthat the threat of death is effective deterrence evento the most heinous crimes. Whatreally deters the commission of the crimeis the ability of criminal law enforcement to make citizens law abiding by effecting arrest and intensifying its crimeprevention activities: (4) Increase police visibility by augmenting foot and mobile patrols and construction of detachmentin crime proneareas. (2) Improvement of crime solution efficiency by improving the skills of investigators and providing the police with better equipage. Since social conditions and personal maladjustments are assumed to be the “seed bed”of crimes, the threat of death could not detercriminality orif there is any, the deterrent effect will be negligible. Instead, the government should address the problemof poverty and inequality by improving the quality of familylife and through amelioration of economic andsocial conditions in the community. Thereis no doubtthat these are the very reasons whyFilipinos are driven into criminality. Based on this premise, the Commission is not fully convinced that the death penalty is the answerto rising criminality. The proper responseto criminalitylies in effective law enforcement, the quick and impartial delivery of justice, and a responsive penalsystem.