Debate manuscript

first speaker:

good morning everyone we are gathered here for the debate on…

Why should the death penalty be made a crime? Based on existing legislation and bills, the death
penalty should be abolished for a variety of reasons, mainly violations of human rights.

The death penalty violates the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life. It also
violates the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel treatment or punishment. The death
penalty is frequently inhumane due to the high number of botched executions. It also
discriminates based on class and race, is easily weaponized by governments, and has a high error
rate. Most importantly, the death penalty fails to achieve its primary goal of being an effective
crime deterrent. Every day, people are hanged or sentenced to death as punishment for a variety
of offenses, some of which should not be criminalized. In some nations, it can be used for drug
offenses, but solely for terrorism and murder in others.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 at the time the crime was
committed, others impose the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual
disabilities, and still, others use the death penalty after unfair trials, all of which are clear
violations of international law and standards. People on death row can spend years not knowing
when their time is up or whether they will see their families for the last time.

The death penalty is the cruelest, most inhumane, and most degrading punishment. Amnesty
International opposes the death penalty in all cases, regardless of who is charged, the nature or
circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence, or the method of execution.

The death penalty, according to Amnesty International, violates human rights, specifically the right
to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established by the United Nations in
1948, guarantees both rights. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights is a subsidiary accord to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. It was enacted on July 11, 1991, after being
established on December 15, 1989. This means that the Second Optional Protocol requires all
State
Parties to abolish the death penalty and prohibits them from carrying out executions. The Eighth
Amendment also prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments,
which is under the(1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights.
Followed by The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines under the Article 3 Section
19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion Perpetua. Reclusión Perpetua is prescribed for crimes punishable by the
Revised Penal
Code, while life imprisonment is imposed on offenses punishable by Special Laws. Reclusión
Perpetua carries the accessory penalty in which, as defined by Philippine Law, the prisoner is
barred for life from holding political office. For example, if a child in conflict with the law is
charged with murder, the prescribed penalty is reclusion Perpetua to death while the penalty to
be imposed is reclusion temporal because of the privilege mitigating circumstance of the minority.
The revised penal code considers an alternative to the death penalty to life imprisonment or life
sentence whereas someone convicted of murder will always receive a life sentence. This doesn't
necessarily mean that they will spend the rest of their life in prison. Depending on how serious the
crime was, the offender will be forced to spend many years in jail before they are allowed to apply
for parole.

The Philippines acknowledged that the death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life by
repealing Republic Act 7659 and later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital
punishment. However, since the start of President Duterte's term in 2016, he has sought to
reinstate the death penalty and was nearly successful when the House of Representatives voted to
pass the bill in 2017. However, we do not want this to happen, so we urge the Philippine Senate to
reject any proposals to reinstate the death penalty. Demand that our Senators recognize that the
death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent to any type of crime and contributes to a culture that
consistently devalues life.
Second speaker:

Good morning, fellow debaters and panelists. As the first speaker discusses the necessity of why
the death penalty should be criminalized. I will address its benefits in terms of human rights
violations. Because the death penalty contradicts the most fundamental of all human rights, the
right to liberty, it should be abolished. It also infringes on the right not to be tortured or subjected
to inhuman treatment or punishment. The death penalty is frequently inhumane due to the high
incidence of botched executions. It also discriminates against people of different social classes and
races, is easy for governments to weaponize, and has a high mistake rate. Above all, the death
sentence fails to achieve its core aim of being an effective deterrent to crime.

Why? Well, it is because… It is irreversible, and mistakes do happen. The death penalty violates
the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The death penalty is not a viable form of crime
control. Capital punishment is an unacceptable violation of civil liberties and is incompatible with
our democratic system's fundamental values

With the support of the philippine constitution article 3 section 19 in the bill of rights. There is this
law which is the….

SEC. 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No.
Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act
Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws,
executive orders, and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or
amended accordingly.
SEC. 2. instead of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed. (a) the penalty of reclusion
Perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised
Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion Perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion Perpetua, because of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2254 and House Bill No. 4826 was finally passed
by the Senate and the House of Representatives on July 7, 2006.

in RA 7659 or the Death Penalty Law. Over a decade later, RA 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines was legislated. In effect, it repealed RA 8177 or the
law designating death by lethal injection as well as RA 7659 and all other laws insofar as they
impose the death penalty.
This house bill and constitution that prohibits the legalization of the death penalty may benefit not
only the rights of the suspects or criminals under judgment but also the morality of everyone that
life must be taken for life rather than just the act of retribution. This also helps people see fairness
in justice, which is especially important in the Philippines, where the justice system is not always
fair to some authorities, with the poor being the most vulnerable. This also brings to mind the
history of the government's justice system in other countries for being cruel to its people when
passing judgments or sentences for any kind of consequences. This will necessitate acknowledging
that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent to any type of crime and contributes to a
culture that consistently devalues life.
Third speaker:
Good morning, fellow debaters, and to our invited panelists for today, I will discuss the practicality
of our first two speakers' arguments and our conclusions on why the death penalty should be
criminalized.

There is no proof that the death sentence reduces crime or political violence in any way. In
country after country, it is utilized disproportionately against the poor or racial or ethnic
minorities. It is also employed in political repression. It is imposed and inflicted arbitrarily. It is an
irreversible penalty that will inevitably result in the execution of persons who have committed no
crime. It is a violation of fundamental human rights. The death sentence affects everyone since it
is carried out in the name of the entire population of the country. Everyone should understand
what the death penalty is, how it is applied, how it affects them, and how it violates basic human
rights. The state's deliberate and cold-blooded slaughter of a human being is a capital offense. The
state has no greater power over a person than to intentionally take his or her life. According to
Amnesty International, the death sentence violates these rights because it recognizes each
person's right to life and stipulates explicitly that "no one shall be tortured or subjected to cruel,
barbaric, or degrading treatment or punishment."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes everyone's right to life and states
unequivocally that "no one shall be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment." According to Amnesty International, the death penalty violates these
rights. Also In Article 3 Section 19 of the Republic of the Philippines Constitution of 1987. Excessive
fines and severe, degrading, or inhuman punishment are prohibited. Neither shall the death
penalty be enforced unless Congress authorizes it in the future for compelling reasons involving
severe crimes. Any existing death penalty shall be commuted to reclusion Perpetua. Reclusión
Perpetua is punished for crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code, whereas life imprisonment
is enforced on offenses punishable by Special Laws. Reclusión Perpetua bears the accessory
penalty, which means that the prisoner is forbidden from holding political office for life,

In contrast, the death penalty is not an act of self-defense in the face of an imminent threat to
one's life. It is the deliberate killing of a prisoner that could have been dealt with more gently.
Torture, as well as cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment or treatment, is never justified. The
inhumanity of the death penalty cannot be overstated. Torture is one example. In the Philippines,
the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1), states that "Excessive fines shall
not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted; neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. whereas, the alarming increase in such crimes, which has resulted not
only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but has also affected the
nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while simultaneously
undermining the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and
order in the country; in the next decades where the legislative create the article where The
imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight
Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating
Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred
FiftyNine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive
orders, and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has "committed to relentlessly attacking" the
death penalty in the Philippines. Its restoration would be a violation of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol. As evidenced by the absence of
evidence that the death sentence deters crime. It has no effect on crime rates in countries that
keep it, and it causes new "issues in the underprivileged."

The case for abolishing the death penalty globally becomes more compelling with each passing
year. Across the board, executions are brutal to those involved in the process. There are also
disagreements about whether capital punishment can be carried out in a way that is consistent
with justice. Those who support capital punishment believe that laws and procedures can be
designed to ensure that only those who truly deserve to die are executed.

Execution is a severe physical and mental assault on a person who has already been rendered
helpless by authorities. Internationally agreed-upon laws and standards require that the death
penalty be used only after a fair judicial process. When a state convicts people without giving
them a fair trial, it violates their right to due process and equality before the law. The death
penalty is irreversible, removing not only the victim's right to seek redress for wrongful conviction
but also the judicial system's ability to correct its mistakes.
There are also disagreements about whether capital punishment can be carried out in a way that
is consistent with justice. Those who support capital punishment believe that laws and procedures
can be designed to ensure that only those who truly deserve to die are executed. Opponents
argue that the history of capital punishment demonstrates that any attempt to single out specific
types of crime as deserving of death is undoubtedly imprecise and prejudiced. They also point to
other factors that they believe preclude the possibility of capital punishment being applied fairly,
claiming that the poor and ethnic and religious minorities frequently lack access to good legal
representation, that institutional racism stimulates predominantly white juries in capital cases to
convict black and other nonwhite defendants, poor and wealthy opponents in disproportionate
numbers, and that, because mistakes are irreversible even in a well-run justice system, some
people will be executed for crimes they did not commit Finally, they contend that due to the court
process for death sentences is lengthy, those sentenced to death are frequently cruelly forced to
endure extended periods of indecision about their fate.The it is time to end the death penalty
globally. With each passing year, the case for abolishment becomes more compelling. Across the
board, executions are brutal to those involved in the process.

It is irreversible, and mistakes do actually happen.

The risk of executing an innocent person cannot be eliminated because execution is the ultimate,
irreversible punishment. Since 1973, for example, more than 184 prisoners sentenced to death in
the United States have been exonerated or released on the grounds of innocence. Others were
executed despite having serious doubts about their guilt.

The death penalty violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. It is applied randomly
– and discriminatorily. It is imposed disproportionately upon those whose victims are white,
offenders who are people of color, and on those who are poor and uneducated and concentrated
in certain geographic regions of the country.
The death penalty is not a viable form of crime control. When police chiefs were asked to rank the
factors that, in their judgment, reduce the rate of violent crime, they mentioned curbing drug use
and putting more officers on the street, longer sentences and gun control.they ranked death
penalty as less effective. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a method of crime
control deceive the public and mask their own failure to identify and confront the true causes of
crime.

It is prejudicial.
The burden of the death penalty is carried disproportionately by those from less privileged
socioeconomic backgrounds or who belong to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority. This includes,
for example, having limited access to legal representation or being at a disadvantage in their
experience with the criminal justice system.
Capital punishment is an unacceptable violation of civil liberties and is incompatible with our
democratic system's fundamental values. In theory, the death penalty is immoral; in practice, it is
unfair and inequitable. We strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital
punishment through litigation, legislation, and advocacy against this barbaric and brutal
institution.
The death penalty system in the United States is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against
people, largely based on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, the victim's race,
and the location of the crime. People of color are far more likely than white people to be
executed, especially if the victim is white.The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer money and
serves no purpose in terms of public safety. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals
polled agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a national survey of police
chiefs found that the death penalty ranks last among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked
increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with
more jobs as the best ways to reduce violence ahead of the death penalty.