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 government’s involvement on deciding to take away the person’s
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 moment’s 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 one’s 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 don’t 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. It’s just a matter of the affected people taking a proactive effort into seeing them to seek for help.

BOP : The victim’s 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 that’s 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 someone’s 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.