Death Penalty

GOVERNMENT:

Context:

Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed down as punishment for a
criminal offence. It can only be used by the state, after a proper legal trial. The United Nations in 2008
adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, however fifty-eight
countries, including the United States and China, still exercise the death penalty. As such, the topic
remains highly controversial. Abolitionist groups and international organizations argue that it is cruel and
inhumane, while proponents claim that it is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most heinous of
crimes.

Today’s debate calls for an assessment of the social cost behind the use of death penalty to convicted
criminals.

What is our proposal for the house today?

Proposal:

1. We will implement death penalty to the “worst of the worst” criminals. These criminals refer to
people who commit heinous crimes such as mass murder, serial killing, the murder of law
enforcement or emergency personnel because of their status.

2. Religion is not a basis for today's debate because religion is a truism.

3. We will use lethal injections as the killing method of these criminals.

Arg 1 capital Punishment is a proportional response to heinous crimes

The principle of capital punishment is that certain crimes deserve nothing less than death as a just,
proportionate, and effective response.

The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional
slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are
more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death
penalty.

We argue that there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to
feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those
violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance
placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty.

Rebuttal for Opposition:

Label: Death Penalty is Irreversible

Execution is, in simplest terms, state-sanctioned killing.

It devalues the respect we place on human life. Once a person
Is executed, we can no longer bring that person back to life.
How can we say that killing is wrong if we sanction killing
criminals? More important is the proven risk of executing
innocent people. The Death Penalty Information
Center reports that from 1973 to 2008, 130 individuals
sentenced to death were exonerated. They had their
conviction overturned and were acquitted at retrial or
all charges were dropped; or they were given an absolute
pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence.
These people could have been wrongly executed.

Arg 2: Death Penalty deters crime.

The state has a 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 can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind
of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1.

Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson
at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential
study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that
murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2.

On top of this, 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 in the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people.

Rebuttal for Opp:

Label: Deterrence is a lie

High execution rates do not deter crimes. Murder rates

have declined in every region of the United States except
in the South where executions are most prevalent. According
to a September 15 report, the South was the
only region where the murder rate rose in 2008. The
South consistently has had the highest murder rate
among the four regions.

Arg 3: Capital Punishment 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 will not have to worry about parole or the chance of
escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State
Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty.
I'm just so disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that
'justice is not done'1.
Rebuttal for Opposition:

Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. 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 state killed another human being on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails
to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from
experience it'2.
Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply not about
what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the
alleged preferences of victims' families.

Arg 4 Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit
further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide,
or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive 1. Putting dangerous
murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the
highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a
convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them.

Rebuttal for Opp:

Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences 1. In 1998,
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons.
Given a total prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over half a percent
of the total prison population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row. Those
sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting life in
prison, so it is not true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes.

Arg 5 Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.

The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping
people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding 1.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities
to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court,
which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute
cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and
Wales have been deemed overcrowded3.
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.

Rebuttal for Opp:

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are
largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of
people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses
associated with death penalty cases1.
Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One
could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction
programs2.
Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as
arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of
punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification
for the death penalty.

Argument 6: Would you rather give more sympathy to the criminals than the victims?

It is really unsettling to think that we should sympathize with the criminals when they themselves
committed a heinous crime. When they themselves didn’t give any sympathy to their victim in the first
place.

OPPOSITION:

Context (can be used as intro for the speech):

Criminals, no matter what crime they commit, are still humans and humans, as we all know, make
mistakes. Just because they make mistakes doesn’t mean that it would be right and would be just to kill
that certain criminal.

Clash: We will not support the death penalty

Argument 1: Killing is immoral. Death penalty is a form of killing.

Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people
should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when
Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in
1980.[1] In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a
murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish
the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions?

Argument 2: It devalues the respect we place on human life.

Execution is, in simplest terms, state-sanctioned killing. What I mean by this is that the state is
giving permission to actually kill someone. Killing someone has been considered immoral and wrong for
centuries. If murder is wrong because it takes a life, the death penalty is wrong for the same reason. How
can we say that killing is wrong, when in fact, we sanction or we allow the killing of criminals?
Argument 3: The risk of executing innocent people is high.

The Death Penalty Information Center reports that from 1973 to 2008, 130 individuals who were
sentenced to death have been exonerated, or in simpler terms, lifted. New found evidence had proved
their innocence and all their charges were dropped. Had they been killed before these evidence were
found, then the state would have given permission to actually kill these innocent people.One person
executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna, an innocent American man
who was convicted of murder and executed. It is likely that many innocent people have been executed in
the US – it is a price not worth paying.

Once a person is executed, the death becomes irreversible: we cannot bring that person back to life.
There are situations where the legal justice system is not fail-safe. There were instances where the
convicted felon was found out to be innocent and worse, people in death row were discovered to be
innocent.

Argument 4: Executions defeats the purpose of rehabilitation.

The role of the justice system has been to punish individuals for committing crimes. Other than the
punitive aspect of the system, it has also been the moral obligation of the state to rehabilitate these
individuals. Each person should be given a second chance on life.