Death Penalty

2014

A timeline of death penalty in the Philippines
THE imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive history. For the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used
to curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death penalty was reimposed as a
knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as rising criminality in the country. The following, with help from the
Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay-Movement for Restorative Justice, traces the death penaltys historical roots and context in Philippine
society:
Spanish Period (1521-1898)
Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europes penal system, including executions.
Capital punishment during the early Spanish Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrote,
hanging, shooting, stabbing and others.
Capital punishment was enshrined in the 1848 Spanish Codigo Penal and was only imposed on locals who challenged the
established authority of the colonizers.
Between 1840-1857, recorded death sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions.
Filipinos who were meted the death penalty include Magat Salamat (1587); the native clergies Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were
garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30, 1896. All of them are now enshrined as heroes.
American Period (1898-1934)
The American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Codigo Penal of 1848, retain the death penalty.
The Codigo Penal was revised in 1932. Treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were
considered capital offenses and warranted the death penalty.
The Sedition Law (1901); Brigandage Act (1902); Reconcentration Act (1903); and Flag Law (1907) were enacted to sanction the use
of force, including death, against all nationalist Filipinos.
Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die for leading a resistance group. He was sentenced to die by public hanging.
The capital punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country, to suppress any resistance to
American authority.
Japanese Occupation (1941-1945)
There are no recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty during this period simply because extrajudicial
executions were widely practised as part of the pacification of the country.
Post-World War II
Espionage is added to the list of capital offenses.
The Anti-Subversion Law called for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any
captured communist leader.
For the period of 1946-1965, 35 people were executed for offenses that the Supreme Court labeled as crimes of senseless depravity
or extreme criminal perversity.
The Marcos Years (1965-1986)
Deterrence became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the
declaration of Martial Law in 1972.
The number of capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death through laws and
decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms, arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses,
unlawful possession of firearms, illegal fishing and cattle rustling.
Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite
prohibitions against public executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public.
Nineteen executions took place during the Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were executed during Martial Law.
Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm
in 1977.
The last judicial execution under the Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed by electrocution.
Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos
Regime was imposed to quell rebellion and social unrest.
President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992)
The Death Penalty was abolished under the 1987 Constitution.
The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.
All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA.
President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998)
Death Penalty
2014

A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public
impression that heinous crimes were on the rise.
The Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 in December 1993 to address the rising
criminality and incidence of heinous crimes.
The Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death; 25 of these are death mandatory while 21 are death eligible.
Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection.
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001)
Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other executions for various heinous crimes.
In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total
of 82,538 (from 71,527 crimes in the previous year).
Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in
observance of the Jubilee Year.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-present)
Arroyo publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions.
Due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the Filipino-Chinese community, she announced that she
would resume executions to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.
Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003.
Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen
the Lara-Licayan case.
Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium.
With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) andRepublic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible.


PRO:

(1) Death feared. Most people have a natural fear of death its a trait man have to think
about before acting. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of
thousands of potential victims who are at stake. Death is an experience that cannot be
experienced and ends all experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain, death is
universally feared.
(2) Innocent executed no proof. According to those who are anti-death penalty law, there
were lots of innocent men wrongly executed. But there was no proof to the contrary!
Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any
proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22
cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very
controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in
l2 cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of
innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent
and their rights are protected. Most likely an innocent person would not be executed.
(3) Death penalty saves lives. There is never a chance given to criminals to pay-back or
commit revenge to the family members of the victims who never stopped until the case is
closed. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. Potential
victims are avoided. One must consider the victim as well as the defendant. Hence, the
death penalty is vital to protect a persons right to live!
(4) Death penalty deterrent effect. If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter
others from committing a crime, we will be confronted with two uncertainties. If we have
the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect, then, the life of convicted criminals has
been expanded in vain. If we have the death sentence, and deter future murderers, we
spared the lives of future victims the prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared
from punishment because they were deterred.
Death Penalty
2014

Death penalty is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who knowingly and
intentionally commits murder in premeditation to take lives of others. Even though it is not
used more often, it is still a threat to the criminals.
(5) Less expensive. The belief that execution is more expensive than imprisonment is false.
The expenses in maintaining in prison many criminals for almost their lifetime far
outweighs the cost of the apparatus and maintenance of the procedures attending the death
penalty.
Most of my classmates, knowing there are many reasons why, chose that death penalty
should be, once again, legalize.

The present situation of the Philippines now is that the country is obviously suffering from
poverty. Addition to this, Philippines crime rate is still high.

With these issues that devastates the country today, death penalty can be a solution. If
death penalty shall be implemented once again in the country, crime rates will possibly
decrease. For this can somehow discourage criminals to kill because fear will be instill in
their minds, that is if they still have fear.

Since death penalty can lessen criminals, the population of the Philippines will decrease as
well. This is an advantage because the current situation of the country is still under the
line of overpopulation.

Lifetime imprisonment does not only waste the governments money for their food and
security rather shall impose to the countrymen that the government is serious about the
number of crimes happening in the country. Justice, as we know, can be bought in the
Philippines. It is always unfair when a rich criminal is imprisoned than a marginalized
criminal forced to did such action because of poverty. Death penalty can erase this gap.

The criminals do not only ruin their own reputation but also of the place they came from.
Take for example the Maguindanao massacre, are the Ampatuans the only feared of the
people or even the place itself? Thus, these killers of the society pollutes the image of the
place they came from.

Punishment shall be imposed to the criminals with high record in the government.
However, this does not include those people who have killed only an individual. This can
apply to grave massacres, or related crimes.

When death penalty will be impose in the country, the possibility that the freed criminals
can kill another person be lessen. Let us not forget that the four walls of religion do not only
make who we are. It is only a part of our life. The best for the society shall be implemented
in whatever ways.



You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be assured that your own life is
safe because we don't allow the death penalty,

Death Penalty
2014

Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it
gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring
Vengeance is mine (Romans 12:19). He thus legitimized vengeance and reserved it to
Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, The murderer shall surely be put
to death (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted
whatever the motive.

I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital
punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives."-
George Bush

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the
lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable
for his actions. ("Excerpts of a Speech by Governor Ronald Reagan, Republican National
Convention, Platform Committee Meeting, Miami, Florida," July 31, 1968)

President Ronald Reagan proclaimed April 19, 1981, as part of Victims Rights Week, "For
too long, the victims of crime have been the forgotten persons of our criminal justice
system."


CON:

(1) Death penalty fails to rehabilitate.
It is not true that when there is fear of death it will prevent one from committing a crime
because most crimes are done on the heat of passion, that is when a person cannot think
rationally.
(2) Death penalty failed as a deterrent. Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible
and the chance of error is inescapable when based on human judgment. Contrary to public
belief, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime based on studies and
researches conducted. Expert after expert and study after study have emphasized and
emphasized the lack of correlation between the threat of the death penalty and the
occurrence of violent crime(Meador 69).
Actual statistics about the deterrent value of capital punishment are not available because
it is impossible to know who may have been deterred from committing a crime.
(3) Death penalty does not discourage crime. Everyday there are many reports of robbery
hold-up, murder and kidnapping. It is noted that what we need is an extreme penalty as a
deterrent to crime. This could be a strong argument if it could be proved that the death
penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers.
(4)Conviction of the innocent occurs. It is better to free a criminal than kill an innocent
man. Conviction of the innocent does occur and thus resulted to miscarriage of judgment
and it is irrevocable.
(5) Death penalty violates human dignity/rights. An argument against the death penalty is
the basic moral issue of conservation of human rights and humanity. The argument of
retribution would be even easier to dismiss if it consisted only of a base thirst for revenge.
According to the opponents of the death penalty, it demeans the moral order and execution
is not legalized murder nor is imprisonment legalized kidnapping but it is the coldest,
most premeditated for of homicide of all. It does something almost worse than lowering the
Death Penalty
2014

state to the moral level of the criminal: it raises the criminal to moral equality with the
social order (Hertzberg, 49). Indeed, one of the ironies of death penalty is that it focuses
attention and sympathy on the criminal.


Still, the country and the state cannot be divided. With a Catholic country like Philippines,
religion is a basis of the decisions that the country leaders will make. Beforehand, we know
that killing in whatever form is still killing. Killing, whether we accept it or not, is written
in the Ten Commandments and we are bound to follow it.
Morality is an issue to be tackle about. If the country imposes death penalty, the image we
make for our neighboring countries will be change. A Catholic country never allows murder
to be in the law.

Death penalty is still murder, killing. No crime can be solve by another crime. No justice
can be taken when will die in the matter he did to the victim. That is still a crime. No peace
can result from war, remember? In other words, no justice can result from another crime.

If death penalty be impose again, the possibility of the crime to decrease is still vague.
Criminals do not consider the word fear from the beginning. When they die, its their
destiny. They are not afraid to die in a manner they expected.

When we separate the religion and the state, the Philippine will become a Machiavellian
country. Machiavelli believes that the best for the society shall be done in whatever manner
possible. And it does not consider morality at all.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Alright here's how the argumentation format will go down. This debate will be in LD Debate Format.
Therefore Definitions and FW must be evident in your case. Claims/Contentions, Warrants/Cards,
Impacts etc.

1st round acceptance

2nd round arguments

3rd round closing statements

Pro
Challenge Accepted ! Lets have a good round Nick ^.^


Con
Thanks for accepting, looking forward to your arguments,

For clarification I offer the following definitions;

Merriam-Webster defines cruel as: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings


Death Penalty
2014

Unusual as: not usual : uncommon, rare

Death row: nickname for that portion of a prison in which prisoners are housed who are under death
sentences and are awaiting appeals and/or potential execution.

Moving forward, I'll explain how we're going to break down future arguments, death row has been a topic
of debate since it was reinstated in 1976, most notably to whether it breaches the "Cruel and Unusual
punishment" section of our 8th amendment. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it did not,
however i will attempt to change the opinion of my fellow debaters among other reasons why Capital
Punishment, (e.g. death penalty) is not a justified punishment.

Therefore my value for this round is Morality- I uphold life because the topic suggests the taking of
another human's life is some how justifiable, despite its hypocrisy and inhumane nature. My value must
be upheld in this round because it encompasses the idea of rationality, or what the majority of human
beings would do in a situation. My criterion is as follows, Sanctity of Life, meaning anything that harms
human life becomes immoral and unjustified.

C1: Capitol Punishment is a breach to our 8th amendment.
If we look at the amount of inmates in the country, which in a research in 2002 concluded topped over 2
million(1), and the amount of inmates who have suffered from capitol punishment since 1976 and who are
currently on death row, is exactly 4501 (2)(3). Right from the start we see this form of punishment as
meeting the definition of "unusual",

However i will go even deeper, only about 3.5%(4) of all those inmates were actually incarcerated due to
"violent crimes" which is usually the type of crime necessary for considerations of the death penalty.
When we do the math it equals to about 70,000. Which means only 6.5% of all inmates who commit
"violence crimes" are sentenced to the death penalty, obviously meeting the unusual definitions,
considering 93.5% of all the other criminals serve their time in prison instead. We must also keep in mind
that the estimation of 2 million inmates was from 2002, over 10 tens ago, meaning this number could in
fact be inaccurate.

Furthermore the forms of execution used are both inhumane and cruel. As an account of the use of the
electric chair depicts, "...the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner
often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises,
and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner
catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of
burning flesh permeates the chamber."

Even the most "humane" version of executions, the lethal injection is questionable at best. Not only are
doctors excluded from these procedures but the can result in painful side effects, "This lack of medical
participation can be problematic because often injections are performed by inexperienced technicians or
orderlies. If a member of the execution team injects the drugs into a muscle instead of a vein, or if the
needle becomes clogged, extreme pain can result. Many prisoners have damaged veins resulting from
intravenous drug use and it is sometimes difficult to find a usable vein, resulting in long delays while the
inmate remains strapped to the gurney."(9)

I: This destroys the concept of "sanctity of life" as we set forth only a certain amount of people to be
punished by this extra measure of punishment, let alone it's obvious breach to the 8th amendment when
we see the cruel means used to execute the inmates.


C2: The death penalty can potential kill innocent people.
Regardless of how accurate the justice system seems to be, we as humans will always make mistakes.
Death Penalty
2014

ALWAYS. This alone is reason enough to abolish the death penalty. The possibility of having sentenced
someone unjustly towards their death, and later discovering they were innocent would make me question
the legitimacy of our government. Death is irreversible while a person in jail who is innocent can be
released and this alone is reason enough to vote affirmative.

My opponent may argue that the justice system however is getting more and more accurate due to them
continuously freeing innocent death row mates. 140(5) inmates to be exact, this however is not the case, it
is almost often the case that the courts themselves don't prove the innocence of the inmates but outside
sources(6) "it took the intervention of people completely outside of the justice system for them to win
back their freedom."(7)

Their has also been over 9 cases since 1976 that have substantial evidence pointing towards the innocence
of several executed inmates, let alone the dozens of possibly other innocent inmates that were wrongly
executed(8). Nine cases in which innocent people were executed wrongly, how many more must be
executed until we learn this is not a just means of punishment? One case of a person wrongly executed
should be reason enough to abolish the death penalty but nine is superfluous reason to dissolve the death
penalty.

I: The courts failure to recognize nine innocent people before they were executed is not only reason
enough to do away with the death penalty, but it very clearly breaks the sanctity of life, when it executes
not just 9 inmates, but 9 INNOCENT inmates.


C3: The justice system is biased, and racist especially in terms of the Death Penalty
Of the 492,852 murders between 1976 and 1999, 51 percent were of whites and 47 per cent were of
blacks. (Homicide trends in the US. Trends by race, Bureau of Justice Statistics.)
This fact seems completely nonracial related, in fact most murders in the united states are intra-racial(10)
meaning that White victims were often slain by white perpetrators, and likewise with Black victims by
Black perpetrators. However 80 percent of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders
involving white victims.

Now lets look towards criminal statistics, blacks make up only 13.6% of the U.S population.(11) Yet
they're more than 40 percent of the country's current death row inmates, and one in three of those executed
since 1977.

If the statistics don't convince you of the racial bias in the judicial system, then this must "In June 2000, a
landmark study of the US capital justice system was released. Entitled "A Broken System", it had
examined death penalty cases between 1973 and 1995 and found that the rate of prejudicial error in capital
cases was 68 per cent. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in almost seven of every 10 of
the thousands of death sentences that were reviewed on appeal during the 23-year study period."(12)

I: These statistics and account lead to one logical conclusion, racial bias is very prominent in the judicial
system, and it is unfair to let this corruption execute unnecessarily where other options are avaliable.

Pro
Thanks Nick for posting up arguments. I will now proceed to post up my own case then rebut his.

Since Justice and Morality rests upon proportionality and giving each their due, Affirm the resolved which
states The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

For further clarification I will offer the following definitions:

Justified- To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. [1]
Death Penalty
2014


Death Penalty- The sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. [2]

Punishment- a penalty inflicted for an offense. [3]

Now that I've established definitions for this round, it is necessary to understand how we will weigh the
arguments for this round. The resolved states "The Death Penalty is a Justified Means of Punishment".
The Death Penalty is an execution of murder for a capital crime. Therefore as an Affirmative I must
advocate that the taking of ones life is a valid or righteous means of a penalty for a crime. In other words I
will prove that the resolved is *Proportional* Since Morality and Justice rest on *Proportionality*.

My value for this round is justice which is defined as being just, right, or valid. The reason we should look
to Justice is because the resolved says so itself. It states "The Death Penalty is a Justified means of
Punishment" Therefore I must prove the Death Penalty gains Justice (in order for it to be justified) while
my opponent proves it loses justice (in order for it to not be justified).

My value criterion is to promote justice to be delivered. This includes promoting those who commit
crimes to be punished and those who are innocent to be protected. The Con may say they can link into this
by saying they protect the innocent from facing the death penalty, but I contend that the innocent people
are at a greater risk in the Con world than in the Pro world due to the possibility of release and also the
taxes a citizen must pay for someone to stay in jail.

Contention 1: Capital punishment is a proportional punishment to Capital Crime, while prison isn't

Capital punishment (A.K.A Death Penalty) is defined as: The sentence of execution for murder and some
other capital crimes. Its not like people will be put to death because they stole someones bag of Doritos,
people will be put to death for committing a high felony crime. A high felony crime deserves a high level
of punishment. Therefore this drastic punishment is indeed proportional to a high felony crime. Life in
Prison, however, is not proportional for committing a capital crime, here's why. When someone commits a
capital crime, such as murder, the offense isn't able to be fixed. Someone is robbed of their natural rights
to Life, Liberty, or Property COMPLETELY. These rights cannot be given back now. Therefore the
*Perpetrator* Sacrifices their rights permanently as well, therefore the Death Penalty is proportional. Life
in Prison, a perpetrator still has rights and can still possibly get out of jail. These statistics show how
600,000 criminals are released into society each year. 70% of all criminals are re-arrested within 3 years
of their release from prison. This shows how criminals often re-offend after being released from jail. This
puts the public at increased risk.

Also when someone goes to jail innocent people pay with their tax money in order to keep them there and
protect society. When we con we simply have more and more taxes on innocent people rather than punish
the guilty.

Impact: In order for something to be justified it has to be proportional and helps prevent harm to society.
Therefore these arguments prove the proportionality in the resolved, the lack of proportionality without
the resolved, as well as the harm that is placed in society without the death penalty.

===Rebuttal===

I would like to establish the fact the B.O.P lies on the Con side since in the *Status Quo* the death
penalty is justified. Therefore I don't need to prove anything I simply need to defend the status quo. At the
point where my opponent has no offence you vote pro.

On to my opponents value structure.

Death Penalty
2014

His whole beginning paragraph is actually something that supports the B.O.P Argument I just made. The
USSC Ruled the Death Penalty as justified and my opponent says he is the one who will attempt to
change others opinions.

Now on to my opponents value. I cannot tell whether his value is Morality or Life. I have no problem with
the value of Morality because Morality and Justice pretty much coincide with each other, but the value of
Life is a different story. The value of Life has no reference whatsoever to whose life will be saved.
Therefore he could value the life of a serial killer who threatens the life of innocent people. Therefore
taking a Util stance doesn't gain justice.

On his Value criterion for sanctity of life cross-apply the argument I just made. If I don't follow sanctity
of life it doesn't necessarily mean that I am not delivering justice. When the state goes and punishes a
felon this is considered not following the sanctity of life but it is still justified therefore the value criterion
of sanctity of life doesn't disprove the justification of the resolved. This is why we must use my value
criterion of promoting justice to be delivered whoever does this gains the justification(Pro) or disproves
the justification(Con)

Now on to his first contention

The "Unusual" Punishment argument doesn't have much effect because it isn't usual for someone to
commit a crime to receive a death penalty punishment. This form of punishment is still proportional even
if it may be unusual and therefore gains justice and is justified.

On to the second paragraph my opponent fails to recognize the level of the violent crime. If I punch you in
the face I will go to jail but I obviously won't be put on death row because the offence was minor. Now
those 6.5% probably committed a crime so awful like beat someone to death that they deserved the death
penalty.

The "Cruelness" he's putting out doesn't mean it isn't justified to use the death penalty, it simply says the
way we use it now is inhumane. It doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty itself. You can
buy these arguments but they don't flow against justice, once there is a change in the system of delivering
the death penalty it will be even more justified, but is still justified now.

Contention 2
Its true we as humans make mistakes but this is simply reason enough to vote pro. The reason being is an
innocent person would much rather die than be tortured in prison no matter how long they stay in there.
He tries to say that death is irreversible while going to jail someone can still be let out, but the
psychological trauma one sustains in prison is also irreversible and is worse than death because they won't
be able to live properly anymore, they'd live in fear of being attacked as they were in prison.

I'm not arguing the justice system is getting better, I'm arguing A justice system is getting better. DNA
Testing was how they exonerated all of the innocent people my opponent stated in his C2 He tries to pre-
empt me but fails because the releasing of innocence is still getting higher and higher over time.

Now against this next paragraph cross-apply what I say against the first paragraph, without the death
penalty these people would have suffered even worse in prison. The pro is actually proving the
justification better than the Con is disproving the justification.

Contention 3

Just because the Justice system is supposedly Biased doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty
once again these supposedly innocent people would be put in jail and suffer even worse consequences
than a death penalty.
Death Penalty
2014


I await my opponents responses. Vote Pro !


Con
I would like to quickly clear up something, I hope my opponent can forgive me but there was a mistake in
the value area, it was in fact MORALITY and not LIFE, I hope he can accept my sincerest apologies, now
on to defending my case;

I agree morality, and justice do relate however let it be noted that our Laws, the way to reach justice, are
simply our codifications of our morals which is why we always prefer Morality ahead of Justice.

Towards my criterion he states that delivering justice doesn't infringe on sanctity of life, normally I would
agree however as I have proved the Death Penalty is a clear break of sanctity of life, as it takes away the
life of someone. Sending someone to jail does NOT infringe on sanctity of life because it does not harm
the criminal in any way. In fact, they are fed, housed, and given the basic necessities of life, unlike the
death penalty which takes away a criminals life and therefore makes the largest possible break to sanctity
of life as it purposely kills someone.

My opponent establishes a "burden of proof" on the affirmative in stating that the "status quo" already
approves of the Death Penalty and therefore I must disprove its justifications. However this "status quo"
argument is fallacious argument because in the 1700-1800's we considered slavery as "the status quo" this
didn't mean that it was "justified" as we can see since now it is abolished in the United States.
Furthermore support for the death penalty has steadily been decreasing, only 33% of the populace
supports the death penalty with a significantly higher (52%) supporting life without parole.(1) Completely
turning around his "status quo" argument and proving how we should always look to the con.

Cont. 1
To my first contentions he states that since the Death Penalty is "proportional" and therefore justified.
This argument is not sound however, because putting a criminal in jail is also "proportional" as they
basically serve the rest of their life in a cell. However this "eye for an eye" argument is obviously NOT
how we run our judicial system. A rapist is not raped himself, a arsonist is not set on fire, likewise a
murderer should not be murdered himself and instead should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

My opponent clearly did not read the entirety of my first contention, but I will reiterate the important
points of the 2million people arrested in 2000, 70,000 were convicted of violent crimes necessary to be
considered for the Death Penalty, however as I proved ONLY 6.5% were sentenced to death (or exactly
4501) obviously meeting the "unusual requirement". Furthermore no matter what crime the death row
inmates committed, the state does not have the right to use barbaric forms of death like the electric chair
or the inhumane "lethal shot".

Cont. 2
My opponent makes the crude remark that a innocent person would rather DIE than to be sentenced to a
prison sentence. Simply put this is not supported by any sources, and appealing to the humanity in all of
us I think everyone can agree that no sane person WANTS to die. Furthermore, if you extend the 6th
source from my first speech, you see DOZENS of stories of people exonerated and who live happy lives
today. Obviously my opponents claim that "people prefer dieing then jail" is false and is why we also
prefer life imprisonment.

Furthermore he fails to recognize the major impact of the contention the killing of people is not only
wrong, but the killing of an INNOCENT person is even worse. How many people in the pro world would

Death Penalty
2014

need to be killed innocently before they realized the death penalty has major errors. Not only does the
death penalty have controversial implications but it is easily resolved by having life without parole as the
alternative. It reaches the same goal, stopping crime, at a cheaper cost and without the possibility of
killing innocent inmates. My source states how tax payers actually are paying much more for death row;
"taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular
confinement."(2)

Cont. 3
My opponent makes a very short response to my third contention and is basically the same as before,
however he misses the fact that a RACIST federal institutions should NOT be allowed to continue its
proceedings. The reason we created the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to prevent racial segregation and major
forms of discrimination. Now not only does the Death Penalty meet the requirement for "Cruel and
Unusual Punishment" but it is a breach to our 1964 CRA, furthering my resolve that the Death Penalty is
not justified nor is it Moral, taking a life is never justified or moral.

===Rebuttal===

My opponent begins by stating that justice is also defined as "proportionality" however as I stated above it
obviously isn't. The ancient proverb comes to mind "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Rapists are not raped by the judicial system, arsonists are not set on fire by the judicial system, and
murderers should not be murdered by the judicial system. Towards his value criterion, he is stating
whoever brings about the most justice should win the round. I only do this the best, for two main reasons,
one I reach the SAME justice that he does, I prevent crime and secondly I DO NOT kill innocent people, a
judicial system that is okay with the killing of innocent people is obviously one that is not functioning
properly and is the reason why you will always prefer life imprisonment. Furthermore I have further proof
of how the Death Penalty DOES NOT result in better justice and in fact does not prevent harms as the Pro
would like to believe it does, in fact states that employ the death penalty have a higher death murder rate
then the ones that do not(1).

To his Cont. 1, the proportionality argument has been proved again and again that this should not be how
our justice system is run. My opponent brings up a very nice statistic that 600,000 criminals are released
each year, my one question is, how many of those were convicted of a serious crime that would usually
result in a death penalty sentencing? As I stated in my earlier speech, only 70,000 people were convicted
of serious crimes, compared to the 600,000 people released per year, we see that the number of inmates
who were convicted of serious crimes and released must be very small indeed, completely disproving his
impact of "danger to the populace"

Furthermore I have turned his impact, and proved that the death penalty actually costs MORE than
sentencing someone life imprisonment. Furthermore we notice that "life imprisonment" means that the
offender WOULD NOT return to society and therefore makes NO threat to society any longer, and in fact
reaches justice for everyone AND I prevent the risk of "killing innocent people" meaning not only do I
punish the people who commit crimes but I PROTECT the innocent, meaning I link into his value
criterion BETTER than he does a clear reason why you must vote CON.

I thank my opponent for his arguments and await the replies, may the best debater win!
Pro
I would like to thank my Good Friend Nicholas for this challenging round.

You can already cast your ballad for Pro because of the very CRUCIAL drop he makes. He drops the
argument about how life in prison with no parole is worst than the death penalty.

On to the Value Criterion Debate

Death Penalty
2014

My opponent makes major contradictory statements when he says there is no break in the sanctity of life
when one goes to jail and he also makes it seem that one going to jail is actually good. If one is fed,
housed, and given the basic necessities of life then why doesn't everyone break the law to go to jail ? He
never makes this kind of argument before so you must allow me to respond. The point of having jail is to
be a deterrence to crime. The way my opponent makes jail sound isn't causing any kind of deterrence what
so ever. This is already a reason to vote Pro because the Death Penalty doesn't sound Nice at all therefore
Potential Violators of crime will be deterred from committing said crimes. We can't have the value
criterion of "Sanctity of Life" because then there would be no deliverance of justice at all.

Also we need to at least discredit this Value Criterion because his second contention is all about how the
Pro can never respect the "Sanctity of Life" because the Death Penalty can potentially kill innocent
people. This is EXTREMELY abusive because the point of a good Value Criterion is to allow both sides
to link into that said criterion, to be a good weighing mechanism. However this Value Criterion is a
POOR weighing mechanism due to it being largely circular. This is the SECOND MAJOR reason to vote
Pro. He has made a MAJOR breach in the point of LD Debate and should be dropped right here and now.
He takes out ALL Fairness in the round with this abusive nature. I now must waste character space on
trying to beat back this Value Criterion and I can't provide any kind of educational benefit to this round
which is the very point of this debate round. Here is another CLEAR VOTER to drop my opponent. He
takes out all Education.

Now against my value criterion of promoting justice to be delivered my opponent only attack on my value
criterion was that he can link into it better (Which means he concedes to my value criterion being the
criterion of the round) and he attempts to de-link me from my value criterion but this means he accepts
my value criterion. He provides no reason to consider his criterion over mine therefore extend my Value
Criterion to be the Criterion of the round.

B.O.P

He tries to bring up the fact that in the 1700-1800's Slavery was considered justified. This doesn't help
him, he still needs to prove the Death Penalty isn't justified. This is where he was supposed to make up for
the serious breach of education he made earlier in his speech but he simply continues to breach education.
The B.O.P Lied on people like Abraham Lincoln and that's where education came about. If the burden of
proof is on me this is another place where I must waste character space trying to beat it back. Here is your
third voter of Fairness/Education breach by my opponent.

Then he tries to talk about the majority of the Populace opposed the death penalty, but first this is
extremely contradictory to what he said in his case therefore don't allow him to change his words. Second
these statistics don't prove anything in the Status Quo many places still have the death penalty in place
and its considered perfectly justified, and just because a majority of the people are in support of something
doesn't make it justified look to slavery as an example. The B.O.P Still lies on the Con.

Cont. 1

Against the idea that the Death Penalty meets the definition of "Cruel" I say it isn't because its
proportional and delivers justice. Against this my opponent brings up life in prison, and the "eye for an
eye" Proverb.

Against the "Life in Prison" argument: Just as my opponent makes Life in Prison sound earlier is the exact
reason why it ISN'T proportional to capital crime. When one commits Capital Crime they rob someones
natural rights. Rather than lose theirs as well (Which is what proportionality promotes) My opponent
rewards them by allowing them to live for free on the common peoples tax dollars.

Against the "Eye for an eye" proverb: The way I use Proportional is the level of the crime (Such as capital
Death Penalty
2014

crime or low level crime) is equal to the level of punishment (Such as capital crime or a day in jail
respectively) therefore the proportionality he tries to promote isn't what I'm talking about.

The Theory shell I ran earlier outweighs this completely because this contention doesn't link into the value
criterion of promoting justice.

Cont. 2

Basically against the first paragraph extend the argument of post-trauma life in jail causes a person. Also
"Give me freedom or give me death" Comes into major play in upholding that extension. This extension
shows how life in prison is more harmful than the Death Penalty.

He can provide the impact of protecting innocence all he wants but the fact of the matter is I'm protecting
innocence from even further pain. People are often beaten and raped in jail. My opponent fails to
recognize this throughout his arguments.

Also he takes about abolishing it to make things cheaper but first this doesn't take out the justification of
the death penalty just because it is cheaper to have life in prison doesn't mean the death penalty isn't a
justified means of punishment. Second these tax payers would be paying less but they would still be
paying for innocence to go to jail and be abused every day which is a loss-loss situation.

Cont. 3

My response may have been short but it was still effective. No where in his third contention is there hard
evidence that says the justice system is definitely racist only some of the rulings it makes MAY have
SOME implications of racism. This doesn't take out the justifications of the Death Penalty. Therefore
since my opponent doesn't meet his B.O.P at all there is no reason to vote con. This will be your fourth
voter to vote Pro.

Now onto my first contention.

Now he tries to weasel out of it by saying the danger to the populace is very small but this is problematic
because he himself says any danger to innocence is too much to risk and now he turns around saying there
is only small risk to the populace ? I find this very contradictory as well as hypocritical and is your fifth
voter to vote Pro because he himself says any risk to innocence is too much and shouldn't be taken.

Now the ending paragraph starts off by saying the Death Penalty is cheaper but that still doesn't take out
the justification. Then he says when one is sentenced to life imprisonment then the offender doesn't return
to society but offenders of serious crimes can still be released into society due to a bargaining chip of
some kind prosecutors do this all the time therefore the death penalty is the only way to assure that the
risk to innocence is low and then he says he prevents innocence from dying but he still promotes post-
traumatic issues from jail which harms innocence as well as risks these crazy people to be released back
into society and harm other innocence.

Here's how the round breaks down.

The first major voter is the theory shell I give earlier about my opponents abusive nature in this round and
how Fairness/Education is a voter which he undermines.

The second reason is the value criterion for this round is to promote justice which the Pro does much
better than Con because I ensure that one who may or may not be innocent won't deal with trauma from
jail and also risk them being released back into the populace to harm other innocent people which also
links into his criterion of sanctity of life so by my opponents own standard I win.
Death Penalty
2014


My opponent can get sources seeing that he had more but I get arguments link into both criterions more
effectively.