THBT Death sentences for terorist and drug addicted should be

implemented.
(+) Background : 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 a state, after a proper legal trial.
So we believe that the wrongly accused in this matter would not be very significant, since they’ve
been through a lot of trials, investigations, and all the procedures to make sure of the real
actor/suspect of a crime. Currently, 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it.

Definition : Death sentences -> A maximum punishment given to a criminal in the form of death.

Terorist -> An individual or a group of people who commit mass killing/genoside by bombing or any
other ways that resulted in a loss of many lives under every reasons.

Drug addicted -> A person who consumed drugs for the sake of recreational purposes (except for
medical purposes), addicted to it, and did an illegal transaction of drugs. This is also applies to drug
dealers, which is the main core of the problem, who is the people who sell, distribute, and
committing illegal drug trafficking in a certain amount according to the existing law.

We are gonna debate in the principle of whether or not death sentences is justifiable and effective
in deterring crimes.

TEAM SPLIT :

PM : justification (why is it justifiable), effectivity (why is it effective in dettering crimes)

DPM : future impact (best and worst scenario)

1. Assortions : Punishing people by death penalty is justifiable because a right to live is not
absolute.
Reason : The rights to life is not absolute. There can be exceptions, for example in self-defense,
or when the person in question has perpetrated a crime of a certain degree. Therefore, death
penalty is not necessarily a violation of human rights. Governments take our rights every day
anyway, such as prison, fines, etc. Because governments have the rights to take away rights
from those individuals when they violates the law. In social contract, societies give their rights
to their government to then distribute them fairly to prevent violation, so if there is an
imbalance of rights (in form of someone violating the law), governments take away rights of
these violators to balance the scales. Which is why government taking away rights, in form of
punishment. And that’s what makes it justifiable. Yes, human rights must be protected, but
there are situations where they can be proportionally compromised.

(-) Assortions : Killing is never justified. An eye for an eye will make the world become blind.
Reason : The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing the criminals,
the government is actually backlashing their own idea that murder is never okay but then they
show that murder is not okay by murdering, this is a very much contradiction and devaluing
human life in the process. This is also an act of violence, and violates the right to life as
declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Right which says that we have a right not to
be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. On top of this, the state 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.

2. Assortions : Death penalty detters the crime.

Reason : The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and
impementing death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime, esp mass
killing. The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in
convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. This one is often called as a
precautionary principle. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death
is scarier than that. 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 them.
Evidence : 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 rise.
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 State. In short, the death penalty can-
and does- save the lives of innocent people.

(-)Assortion : 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.