Perhaps the strongest objection humanist would raise against pragmatic leadership is that many people will surely die and that includes innocent people. Many prisoners in Muntinlupa who never have the resources to pay a lawyer will die under-represented in the court of justice. To their families who can no longer hope of parole in the future the agony maybe unbearable.
Other criminals who could have been rehabilitated should there is a proper program that could possibly transform them into useful individuals and gained parole eventually in the future may never have any option of mending their ways. They just go to the gallows and face the cruelty of death in the name of practical-isms.
If extra-judicial killings would surface in every cities across the country, the possibility that it would work as efficiently and effectively as in Davao may less likely to happen as it needs a strong local executive to implement the plan. The chance of collateral damage may be fairly high if this is the case.
However, this perspective tend to largely ignore the fact that criminals in and out of prison can easily pose threat to the innocents. The sooner a number of them gets eliminated, the faster the removal of threat most city dwellers and travellers face every day.
Many would raise the objection that death penalty is not deterrent to crimes and criminals do their thing even if there is a death penalty law. To some degree yes, but if the killings is more of a surety, then it can be safety argued it can be a serious deterrence against criminals doing their thing.
The fact that death row killings eliminate a significant number of convicted persons, their chance of bribing officials to go in and out is far less. The least also the threat they may pose to the general populace. This way, we could understand why many people would like to support the killings of criminals both extra-judicial and death row simply because the threat to the general population looms large. In fact, it can render many to be inhibited in their actions to roam around their places of abode.
So many can’t accept the humanist argument that everybody has to pay the price for ensuing we will not kill one innocent. Humanist would always take side to the last innocent has the most inherent value if far more greater than the total threat the general population may face.
Whose death would you prefer, the death of criminals which possibly include the wrongly convicted, or the death the death of innocents falling prey to criminals in an out of prison?
Humanist may raise an objection that it is a false dichotomy and that there’s always alternative where the criminals will be rehabilitated and the innocent will be protected as well. They may cite the success of modern democracies to prove their point or cite their poster boy Jessie Robredo that it can be done without resorting to means already scorned by advanced societies.
But such find an alternative involves time and when it happens, the death of innocents may ever far greater than the death through pragmatic means.