Argument

(Anti-death penalty)

Necessity – “the fact of being required or indispensable”

Countries abolishing DP

- In 2017, two countries – Guinea and Mongolia – abolished the death penalty in law for all
crimes. Guatemala became abolitionist for ordinary crimes only. Gambia signed an
international treaty committing the country not to carry out executions and to move to abolish
the death penalty in law.
- At the end of 2017, 106 countries (a majority of the world’s states) had abolished the death
penalty in law for all crimes and 142 countries (more than two-thirds) had abolished the
death penalty in law or practice.
- Amnesty International recorded commutations or pardons of death sentences
in 21 countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco/Western Sahara, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Qatar, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tunisia, UAE, USA and Zimbabwe.

Reports from 2017 indicated that at least five people were executed in Iran who
were under 18 at the time of the crime for which they were sentenced to death.
(republic act 7610 Section 1 - This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.")

Supporters of the death penalty often posit arguments that cite retribution for
violent crimes as being instrumental in justice. However, several studies and research
have showed that taking the life of another human being through capital punishment
only perpetuates a cycle of violence. Furthermore, other research has shown that flaws
in our justice system has led to innocent being prosecuted, guilty being set free, and a
plethora of other biases being present during capital punishment cases.

Reasons

1. Moral Hypocrisy

The late and great Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi, once said, “An eye for an eye will make the
whole world blind.” There is no arguing that crimes associated with the death penalty–such as
premeditated murder–are reprehensible. However, if we are to agree that taking the life of another
human being can be categorized as the upmost heinous of acts, how can we justify treating such a crime
with a punishment that mirrors the very thing we so adamantly condemn? It is because of this that
support of the death penalty can be deemed as moral hypocrisy.

Moreover, current prison conditions have continually reflected racial and socioeconomic biases which
make prisoners of lesser privilege more likely to be sentenced with the death penalty than those of
wealthy upbringings and substantial careers. Bryan A. Stevenson, founder and Executive Director of the
Equal Justice Initiative, and professor at the New York University School of Law, visited The Daily Show
with John Stewart in October 2014 to discuss the discord between morality and America’s criminal
justice system.Stevenson noted that the current criminal justice system operates in a way that is kinder
to people who are wealthy and guilty than those who are poor and innocent.

For this reason, it is especially crucial that the death penalty be outlawed in order to acquire true
justice. In a country where the death penalty is shown to be inflicted more often on those that are
underprivileged and innocent as opposed to those that are rich and guilty, we can not choose to support
the death penalty in good conscience.

2. Crime Rates

- pag sinabi nila na Automatic na mababawasan yung crime rate dahil sa death
penalty that would be a hasty generalization ( fallacy) A hasty generalization is a
fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.
It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faultygeneralization, a
biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of
qualifications.

There are no evidence that death penalty is a deterrent against crime

The idea that the death penalty would reduce crime is a little bit like
saying rain dancing is going to produce rain,” said John Donohue, a law
professor at Stanford University, who has evaluated a number of studies
on whether the death penalty deters crime. “It’s probably about as
strong a finding as you can get. There is no statistical study that has
given us any reason to believe the death penalty reduces murder.”

Anecdotal evidence, such as the comparisons of murder rates between

states that have the death penalty and states that don’t, tend to show
that a state’s use of capital punishment has no bearing on the rate of
murders, said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty
Information Center, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that has been
critical of the way states carry out the death penalty.

Donohue, the law professor from Stanford, pointed to a comparison

between Hong Kong, which abolished executions, and Singapore, which
increased its use of capital punishment, that shows “virtually no
difference” in the trend of murder rates.
(click on year to see the murder rates and calculations involved in this analysis, provided by David
year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Murder 5.72 5.26 5.00 4.89 4.95 4.72 4.75 5.17 5.63
rate with
death
penalty
states*

Murder 4.05 3.90 4.01 4.13 4.09 3.88 3.70 4.26 4.49
rate with
non-
death
penalty
states*
Percent 41% 35% 25% 18% 21% 22% 28% 21% 25%
difference
Cooper; 2012-2013 calculations by Joshua Kamin, 2014 calcualtions by DPIC staff.)
* Includes Kansas and New York in the years after they adopted the death penalty, 1994 and 1995
respectively. New Jersey and New York ended the death penalty in the latter part of 2007 and will
not be counted as death penalty states in 2008.

The Delaware Supreme Court found the Delaware death penalty statue unconstitutional late in 2016
and in early 2017 made that ruling retroactive. The calculations on this page will include Delaware as
a death penalty state in 2016. Delaware will not be counted as a death penalty state in 2017.

† The rates for 2015 were recalculated based on revised figures in the 2016 UCR.
Michigan Lawmakers Reaffirm State's Longstanding Ban on Capital Punishment - In a
vote upholding the state's longstanding abolition of the death penalty, Michigan lawmakers
refused to support a measure that would have put capital punishment before state voters in a
referendum. The vote fell 18 short of the 2/3 required for passage. During a lengthy House
debate regarding the bill, Representative Jack Minor (D-Flint) told his colleagues that studies
show crime rates are lower in states without the death penalty. He noted, "The death penalty's
not a deterrent. In fact, the figures would suggest it's just the opposite." Other opponents of
the measure stated that "revenge" would not help victims' families. Michigan has not had the
death penalty for 158 years, and voters have not addressed the issue since its abolition was
included in the 1963 revision of the state constitution. Michigan is one of 12 states in the U.S.
that does not have a death penalty. (Michigan Live, March 19, 2004) The state was the first
English speaking government in the world to ban the practice.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey
by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates
than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the
death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with
the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in
states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death
penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor,
John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846.
"We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times,
9/22/00)

States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade - In the past ten years,
the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some
commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in
executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, "Yes, the Death Penalty Deters," Wall St. Journal, June 21,
2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained
consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty.

When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the
majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The
average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5,
whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
3. Exoneration

What if an inmate sentenced to death is later found to be

innocent of their convictions? What if the uncovering of
this innocence comes after a lethal injection has already
been administered?
This is much more than a hypothetical. A study titled “Rate of
false convictions of criminal defendants who are sentenced to
death” published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America found that over four percent of prisoners sentenced
to death in the United States are innocent. The team of
researchers analyzed 7,482 death sentences from 1973 to
2004. Out of all these cases, it was found that 1.6 percent
were later exonerated, and 4.1 percent should have been
exonerated.

If a conviction is ever overturned, it can take decades at the

very least. However, there are several documented cases of
prisoners being released years after imprisonment. Life
sentences serve as a better alternative to the death penalty
in order to protect the potentially innocent.

Case 1: “George Stinney Jr: Black 14-year-old boy exonerated 70 years after he was
executed”

He became the youngest person to be executed in the US in the 20th century

when he was sent to the electric chair in 1944, but more than 70 years after his death
his conviction has been overturned. The 14-year-old black boy was sentenced to death
for the murder of two white girls in a segregated mill town in South Carolina, in a trial
that lasted less than three hours and reportedly bore no evidence and barely any
witness testimonies.

He was kept from his parents and any legal counsel when he was
interrogated by authorities, and his supporters claim that the small, frail boy was
so scared that he would have said whatever he thought would make the police
happy, despite there having been no physical evidence linking him to the death of
the girls.
 It took Mullen nearly four times as long to return her decision on Stinney Jr’s
case than it had originally taken to arrest and have him executed in 1944, and said in
her ruling that she could “think of no greater injustice” than the boy’s case.

DNA test
– pang contra nila yan

Flaws-

Since it made its courtroom debut in the mid-1980s, DNA evidence has
been integral to thousands of cases (including, famously, the OJ Simpson
murder trial). Juries and lawyers alike generally consider DNA evidence to be
extremely reliable—a 2005 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of people
considered it to be “very reliable.” But in reality, DNA evidence is much less
reliable and objective than most people think. A story published
yesterday by Frontline maps out just how DNA evidence works and how it can
lead juries astray.

…Crime labs don’t exactly map the human genome. Instead, they
typically focus on 13 places, or loci, plus a 14th that expresses gender.
Each loci is home to two alleles, one inherited from each parent. On an
electropherogram, these alleles show up as spikes, and vary from
person to person. We usually share half or more of our markers with
close relatives, and often share several with complete strangers. But by
the FBI’s statistics, the probability of sharing all 13 loci with someone
you’re not related to is lower than 1 in a trillion.

To choose a suspect, investigators try to match the sample loci and the
suspect’s loci as closely as possible. But often, crime scene samples are
imperfect and the DNA breaks down, so the loci are weak. That makes finding
a 100 percent match very challenging.

But even if that match exists, there’s no way to tell how the crime scene DNA
sample got there in the first place—scientists still don’t know how DNA can
travel. Many of our body’s cells contain our DNA and we shed them wherever
we go. Under certain circumstances, those cells could end up in places we
ourselves have never been. Plus, they don’t have a timestamp on them, so
DNA deposited on a crime scene six months before a crime occurred may end
up as part of the case.
To reduce error and the likelihood of contamination, labs prefer a lot of crime
scene samples with the suspect’s DNA. Soon technology will likely enable
labs to sequence DNA off a single cell. But this may not mean that the
evidence will be easier to interpret, especially because there’s already a lot of
variation in how the labs process DNA samples, changing the conclusions that
investigators can draw from the evidence.
Overall, the ambiguity of DNA testing methods means it is hard to know
precisely in which and how cases DNA may have led juries and judges astray.
But looking forward, If more people know that DNA evidence is not nearly as
reliably black and white as it may seem, then maybe fewer suspects will end
up wrongfully incarcerated.

4. Cost (death pen vs life incarceration )

The cost of the death penalty as opposed to a life sentence

without parole is exponential. Due to the extra measures
taken in judicial proceedings, lawyer fees, extended trials,
and expert witnesses, costs end up being higher. A Cost
Study by the Sacramento Bee noted that California would
save $90 million per year if it were to completely eliminate
the death penalty.

According to Susquehanna University Political Review

In the 32 states in the Union where the death penalty is legal, as well as the federal government, the
death penalty has grown to be much more expensive than life imprisonment, whether with or without
parole. This greater cost comes from more expensive living conditions, a much more extensive legal
process, and increasing resistance to the death penalty from chemical manufacturers overseas. These
costs could even become higher, pending the outcome of various lawsuits against various states for
their “botched” executions. Each death penalty inmate is approximately $1.12 million (2015 USD) more
than a general population inmate.
state authors year Seeking Not Difference 2015
death seeking in cost dollars
penalty DP
Maryland Roman et al 2008 $ $ $ $
2,400,000 1,100,000 1,300,000 1,430,650

California McGee 2005 2,087,926 627,322 1,460,604 1,772,028

Connecticut State of 2005 380,000 202,365 177,635 215,510

Connecticut
Commission
Indiana Turrow, 2010 449,887 42,658 407,229 442,500
Scott
Kansas Kansas Judicial 2003 1,200,000 740,000 460,000 592,353
Counci
Arizona Williams, Linda 2000 143,604 70,231 73,372 100,958
M
Montana Montana 2012 1,200,000 800,000 441,000 464,530
Legislative
Branch
Utah Utah Legislative 2010 1,600,000 1,738,578
Branch
South Carolina DPRDC 2010 1,100,000 1,195,267

Oklahoma OKCADP 2013 3,500,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 2,542,755

Ohio WHIO 2014 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,001,732

Washington Collins et a 2015 1,000,000 1,000,866

Nevada State of Nevada 2014 532,000 532,461

Legislative
Auditor
Federal Gould and 2010 620,942 77,618 543,324 590,382
Greenman
Average 1,044,326

Kaso maraming flaws like yung fund nung naka prison na

tao
Implicit

 Medical costs of prisoners have been increasing greatly as 60+

prisoner populations grow, due to longer sentencing and less sentences
with parole opportunities
 Overcrowding leads to a variety of cost increasing factors, including
the need for more physical prisons, increased potential legal fees and
medical costs from inmate violence, and problems with correctional officers
 Botched execution lawsuits could lead to significant increases in
cost to death penalty states

These implicit costs will rise if the death row population were all converted to
general population, but the death row population is such a small percentage of overall
population (about 0.19%) that it would have negligible effects on the above costs.
Additionally, converting death row prisoners to general population would give these
prisoners much stricter legal rights and fewer options to pursue in court. However, the
execution lawsuit could have a significant impact on the continued usage of the death
penalty by states and the federal government.

Overall, the death penalty is more expensive in almost every aspect than simply
incarcerating a prisoner for the entirety of his or her life. Since the “deterrent effect,” or
the decrease in crime due to the possibility of being sentenced to death, was not
discussed in this paper, further research would have to be conducted to determine
whether this would cause any sort of significant change in the results of this paper

5. Rehabilitation

Enforcement of the death penalty denies the opportunity for rehabilitation. As

mentioned previously, many individuals who are charged with crimes that can entail
capital punishment are mentally and/or emotionally unstable. Murders occur often in a
moment of passion, in conjunction with a psychological disability, or due to substance
abuse. These characteristics call for a movement toward rehabilitation rather than
execution.Rehabilitation efforts not only help convicted criminals, they help society in
understanding the motivations behind criminal actions and can prevent similar crimes
from occurring in the future.
Conversely, enforcement of the death penalty will not encourage criminals to
become rehabilitated. If an individual knows that their life has a set expiration date, what
is the use in seeking rehabilitation?
Moreover, there are no facets within the death penalty that aid in reform. Rather,
capital punishment perpetuates a cycle of violence and death.
New York Times contributor, clinical professor of psychiatry, and adjunct
professor of law at New York University, James Gilligan, stated that, “The only rational
purpose for a prison is to restrain those who are violent, while we help them to change
their behavior and return to the community.” He expounded upon this point by
evidencing research he and a colleague conducted with violent male offenders at San
Francisco jails. They found that educational rehabilitation programs significantly
reduced violent behavior to the point that violent tendencies became completely null.