We beg a pardon

I take exemption to this article written by a Filipino on the case of Marilou Ranario, an OFW in Kuwait. I hope that this article will be read by the Philippine government officials so that she can be helped. I do not know any update on her case.--Melchor F. Cichon

****
Kuwait Times
Published Date: December 04, 2007
By Armineonila M., Staff columnist



Again, I'm on strike. This time though, it's a hunger strike. I lost my appetite after learning that another person, Marilou Ranario, has been sentenced to death. Believe me when I say that my being a Filipina or an expat, for that matter, has nothing to do with my present agony. There is a big distinction between patriotism and plain, clean-shaven humanitarianism. I am human, therefore, I am subject to feel empathy towards my fellow human. My distress has no racial reference whatsoever.

Ranario's act of wasting away another human being's life was considerably a human act, a nature of impulse when in a segment of the moment the mind begins to depart from the threshold of rational thinking. Nevertheless, one murderous act committed is never justified as a case of severe psychosis as anyone, even the sane ones, may suffer at the hands of transgression and may submit to criminal impetus when constantly provoked.

At the same time no one else but the victim, aside from God of course, can claim witness to the allegedly few seconds' of homicidal anger or grief or despair from the assailant. Who are we to predict the real scene of the tragedy? Who are we as but second-hand recipients of news and testimonies to throw stones on someone else's adversity? Were we present in the crime scene?

If we were, perhaps no crime had taken place as it is our natural instinct to stop it. Ranario has been accused of committing a sin and that is murder, this is a given as it is a sin to kill. But is it not also a sin to kill some more? Or let me put it in a legal term, to sentence someone to death? How should we call those sponsors who also commit inhumane violations? Sin no. 1: STEAL worker's rights. Sin no. 2: MOLEST their services. Sin no. 3: DISRESPECT their independence. Sin no. 4: KILL their
soul. So who has the biggest counts of crimes committed? Yet the victim is dead and that makes it impossible for that person to go to the witness stand and recount his/her faults.

Mercy is very elusive when it is available only in clenched fists. In a nutshell, only those attuned to their inner soul and conscience, those who are open for compromise and have a broad comprehension of the tendencies of human beings, are capable of giving mercy. We are often enraged by the misdeeds of others. We desire to stomp on the culprit and squish him / her to death to satisfy our moment's fits of fury. We feel ignited by our own egotistic drives that we fail to reconsider our thoughts and be
awakened by the reality that in fact we are not alone in this world, that we depend on others' misgivings in order to mirror our own imperfections.

Criminals who have been secluded from the rest of us 'free' people have already experienced that egotistic space inside their prison bars. I believe that's enough of a punishment, of being denied of their own freedom to move in society and to be stripped of the warmth they can only achieve within their own family's arms. Those who nursed anger in their hearts against criminals are clearly no different to these criminals who have nursed anger against their victims.

Albeit we, as foreign representatives of another race, are expected to respect the law that in one way or another, has included us therefore has the responsibility to protect us. We do not claim ourselves to be different as we dig on the same plate and discharge in the same toilet bowls. We all digest what is only tangible and that does not include gold or any silver coins.

Having gained an education from a religious institution, I was taught that God prohibits the act of killing. But here we are, mere humans, dictating someone else's death. Clearly, the law of God and the law of people do not complement each other. There is a clich� that goes "one's wrongdoing is never cured by another's wrongdoing". But we reject its meaning by our desire to be just.

All those convicted of heinous crimes must be confusing themselves with this dilemma while waiting for their last moments on earth. But then again, they owe someone else's life. So what better punishment could there be but that which is parallel to what they have committed. So the verdict should be "Kill the criminal" because murder is unpardonable. Indeed, it is unforgivable to kill. Therefore, should we?