THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY

GOVERNMENT
Problem
- People who are in prison for serious crimes such as murder, rape and drug
smuggling pose a threat to the society once they are released from jail, especially
people who have repeated the offence many times and know the tricks of the trade.
Solution
- Hence, we would like to propose that that THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE DEATH
PENALTY for the safety of the society and also as a compensation to those lives
taken away from the victims.
Objective
- With this proposal, the objectives that can be achieved are providing a safer
environment for the society to live in. Next, is to show to the society, that doing
serious crimes can lead to serious consequences, which in this case the
governments involvement on deciding to take away the persons life because
he/she has posed a threat to society and to compensate for the affected lives of
victims due to their criminal activities. Finally, to decrease the amount of criminal
activity.
Mechanism
- How would the gov identify the case ? : By recruiting officers to keep track and
analyse the criminal records of the prison inmates. The officers recruited will scan
the database for any inmates that have committed heinous crimes, such as rape
and murder.
- What would the gov do ? : Once the particular inmates that match the required
criteria are identified, these inmates will be brought to court for hearing and
reviewing sessions of the case. The judge handling the case will be given the utmost
power to sentence these people who have committed these offences to death, if the
judge believes that they, the prisoners will pose a threat to the society after
completing their jail sentence. The prisoner involved will be informed of this matter
beforehand.
- What if nobody complies ? : The prisoner involved has no power over this
judgement, hence he/she would have to comply to the judgement no matter what.
Hence if the prisoner, does not comply to the judgement, he/she will be injected
with anaesthetics, and the process of sentencing them to death afterwards will be
carried out by medically trained professionals. Consent of the inmate is not taken
into consideration because they themselves have not given a moments thought of
the implications of their actions.
Argument (Definition + elaboration, harms of status quo, benefits of
proposal)
1. The death penalty deters crime.
- Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed
down as punishment for a criminal offence. The government upholds the
responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death
penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. The reasoning here is
simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential
murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be
frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution
totally outweighs the benefits of commiting crime in the mind of murderers-to be so
that the act is no longer worthwhile for them. Furthermore, there are ways to make
the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance,
reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its
deterrent effect.
HOSQ : There is no visible harm into executing this proposal as scientific studies
have proven that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. People still value their
lives at the end of the day. We can be also perceived by the society as playing the
role of God into ending ones life. But the society should realise that the government
is proposing this for the safety of the society and also to compensate for those
victims lives taken away by the criminals.
BOP : In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people. It
is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most heinous of crimes.
2. It helps the victims' families achieve closure.
- The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends,
who will no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They dont
need to be disturbed and forced by these criminals into helping them with their
crimes. They can finally live in peace. They too want a safer place for the future
generation and with these kind of criminals on the loose, it does impact the social-
emotional development of the affected ones especially the young minds.
HOSQ : It will be tough for the affected family members and friends to achieve
closure immediately. The process itself is time consuming. If they are in need of
emotional support or professional advice, the government has legalized
psychologists and counselors to help these people out through these hard times. Its
just a matter of the affected people taking a proactive effort into seeing them to
seek for help.
BOP : The victims family and friends will not have to worry about parole or the
chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure.
3. Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.
- The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in this
country, where keeping people alive in prison contributes to expensive and at times
unconstitutional overcrowding. The current condition of the prisons are mediocre,
whereas the facilities and the supplies are not well kept due to this problem. It is
necessary to alleviate these conditions, for deserving prisoners to complete their
sentence in a not-so horrible envorionment. As for the undeserving criminals, who
have committed heinous crimes, such as murder, rape and drug smuggling, by
executing them, it reduces the unnecessary extra expenditures. Hence, the
government gets to channel the money which was supposed to be used to support
criminals who have committed heinous crimes, to other relevant avenues which will
benefit the society. This is clearly a better option instead of wasting money on
criminals who have caused threats to the society and to compensate for the
affected victims lives.
HOSQ : There is also no visible harm into executing this proposal because it is for
the safety and benefit of the society. But most probably, the family members and
friends of the criminals might be disturbed by the thought of the possibility of the
criminal being sentenced to death instead of serving their sentence in jail for a
lifetime or for years. We urge the affected people to seek help whenever necessary.
BOP : As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps
alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute
those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society
because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences.

OPPOSITION
Problem
- Is the problem severe and urgent enough to warrant such a drastic proposal? : No,
because the criminals themselves should be given the time to realise their mistakes
and change their attitudes throughout serving their sentence in prison. Relevant
punishments are given to relevant crimes. By sentencing them to death : the
government is not giving a second chance to these criminals to become better
people that contribute the society once their term has completed.
- Could the negative implications of the problem be handled adequately under the
status quo ? : Yes, by sending these criminals to counselling sessions by legalized
professional criminal psychologists. Counselling, done either in one-to-one sessions
or group sessions, is definitely a better option as opposed to the death penalty
because we still believe that prisoners deserve a second chance to redeem
themselves. Through these sessions, these criminals are taught to become better
people, wise and most importantly, teaching them the good ways to contribute to
society in the hopes of them not reverting back to their usual ways. However, if the
criminals do not change their behaviour, they would still remain in jail to complete
the rest of their sentence, and also be subjected to other punishments except the
death penalty.
Solution
- Does the solution match the problem ? : No, because sentencing these criminals to
death, clearly shows the government is trying to play God, the superior one, who is
in charge of designating the fates of each criminal being in jail. One crime, and
thats it, you have chances of being executed.
- Does the proposal solve the problem? If no, why ? : No, because there are many
reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many
criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and
thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in
jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be
seen as a much more intensive punishment. Furthermore, for a deterrent to be
effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the
death penalty cases, which often take prolonged
- Does the proposal do more harm then good ? What are the harms evident in the
proposal ? : This proposal does more harm than good, because many victims'
families oppose the death penalty. While some might take comfort in knowing the
guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is
suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the government killed
another human being on behalf of the victim. Sentencing is simply not about what
the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime
committed
Hence, we would like to disagree with the proposal that THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS
THE DEATH PENALTY, because the government has no right to take away the life
of the criminals.
Objective
- By rejecting the proposal, we are trying to protect the human rights of these
criminals, in other words, the right for them to live. With this proposal, the
objectives that can be achieved are the improvements of more suitable
punishments for criminal offenders instead of killing them. Next, is to give the
criminals a deep realization of what they have done wrong, giving them time to
rethink their previous actions and possibly to turn a new leaf.
Mechanism
- Feasibility, ethics : It is definitely feasible and ethical to come up with better
punishments for criminal offenders instead of just blindly executing them. In other
words, this whole idea or mechanism that has been set up by the government is
unrealistic for the society to accept it. Legalising this might take away the trust of
the society towards the government who are now seen as people that play the role
of God, to whoever that breaks the law.
Argument (Definition + elaboration, harms of status quo, benefits of
proposal)
1. Executing prisoners to death is infringing their human rights.
-The government has no right to take away the life of its citizens, in this case,
prisoners. By executing convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder,
and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life and the
right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. On top of
this, the government forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a
life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars.
Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty.
HOSQ : Executioners are mentally and emotionally affected, and the effects can be
often irreversible as this involves the taking away of someones life, one of the most
precious things gifted to us humans.
BOP : Basic human rights are protected no matter what a person contributes to the
society. Criminals are also humans after all. Crimes do not make criminals any less
of a human to be subjected to such awful punishments.
2. Wrongful convictions are irreversible.
- With so much, executions happening, what are the chances that a case is not
properly investigated resulting in wrongful convictions and hence the loss of
innocent human lives. In many cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to life
in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be
proven innocent, because the damage has been done and it is already too late to fix
it. Even money cannot buy back the lives of these innocent ones that have been
executed. Hence, the government should not gamble with people's lives. The
chance of wrongful execution alone should be enough to prove the death penalty is
not justifiable. Therefore, the image of the country is also affected in the process.
What would other countries think of this country which is very actively killing off
their citizens on the basis of crimes, and what if they are proven innocent later,
when they are dead?
HOSQ : This further decreases the trust of the society towards the justice being
served to these innocent ones, and more people questioning the investigations
made till such an irreversible mistake has been made, which in turn decreases the
reliability and credibility of the officers involved in the investigations.
BOP : Innocent people in jail still have a chance of getting a bail and be proven
innocent if they are mistakenly assumed to have committed a crime, in which they
have no connection to.
3. The contribution of criminals in jail
Criminals have the chance to contribute to society even when they are serving their
sentence in jail. Some of the activities that can be done are sewing, wood-work and
doing laundry for the people. Through these activities, the burden of people
decrease due to this reliable and monitored social service. Criminals also benefit
from this by instilling the feeling of responsibility and self-worthiness within
themselves, which will make them much happier even in jail as they feel that they
have a purpose to live at least. They too also acquire new skills by doing different
kinds of social services.
HOSQ : No evident harm is detected through these social services done by
criminals. This is because, at the end of the day it benefits both parties, the
prisoners doing social services and the people receiving those services.
BOP : Prisoners have at least a single purpose to live because of the responsibility of
the social service given to them.