1st speaker affirmative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptors

I’m…… as first speaker delivering argument from political point of view. The second speaker is ……. delivering argument
from social point of view. The third speaker is ….. Collaborating the argument of first and second speaker and rebutting the
negative team. And the replier of my team is …………

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’d like to define and limit the motion. Government means the president and his cabinet in Indonesia bersatu jilid 2 includes
the police, prosecutor and judge who have power to manage and role this country today. Corruptors means every person who
works as the state officer, house of representative, businessman, and all people has done activity to cheat, take, give and loss
the financial of the country and use the money for him. Death penalty means the punishment given to the corruptors by
losing his life. So, the government recommends the court to punish the corruptors with the death penalty for his activity
which loss the country and Indonesian people. The limitation is the state officer and the house of representative.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The state officer and house of representative have duty to serve the people and this country. And they know well that their
job is to make the people become prosperous. Then, when they cheat, take profit for themselves and make the country loss or
corruption, it means that they break their duty to give good serve for people. Death penalty for corruptor gives good effects
for the political and social in this country. It makes the state officer to stay away from corruption, then, society will be more
believable to them

Now, this time for me to deliver our argument from politic point of view and as the first speaker affirmative I would like to
fix my position that we agree with the motion to day this house believe that government should give death penalty for
corruptor. There are some reasons to support our arguments.

First, the policy will make the government’s credibility better and the existence of the government to fight the corruption
will be no question again. As far as we know that many persons who work in the government such as in prosecutor, police
department, court, tax department, etc. corrupt so it makes the grade of believable toward government, especially president,
decreases. The signal shows the bad work of government. And it will influence in-conducive situation of the politic in this
country. The main duty of government to serve the people wills disturb because of the corruptors in every department who
make difficulties to the activities people for example business. Moreover, there will be unfair activity and gap between the
government and people. Ladies and gentlemen, giving death penalty for corruptor will decrease the amount of officers in all
departments to corrupt and make difficulties to people. For example; Gayus Tambunan, a staff of tax department. He gives
some help to big companies to manipulate the amount of tax which is paid to be less than it should be. Then he gets much
money from those companies. He makes the income of the country decrease. He and the big companies make the country
loss for much money. While the small companies must pay suitable the tax which should be paid because of no helping
from the staff like gayus tambunan.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Second reason; that policy to give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next corruptors appear, in other
word the corruptors become chary or deterrent or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid to corrupt. Death penalty is
as deterrent effect. I want to underline here that every 4 years or after finishing the period of the members of house
representative’s job many of those members of the house go to the jail because of corruption. For example the chief of the
house of madiun regency and some members period 2000 to 2004 go to the jail in 2004, then some members of the house
period 2004 to 2008 also go the jail in 2008. Moreover, we still remember our ex chief of madiun city must stay in the jail
because of corruption in 2009. Why that condition happen, ladies and gentlemen? Because the punishment the corruptors get
is very low, so many state officer and members of representative do not fell afraid, they just stay in the jail under 5 years or
just pay some billion. From that condition we are really sure that death penalty will protect the state officer and members of
the house to corrupt. Do you think they will be pleasure to release their life for sentence to death by firing squad? No,
nobody wants to die like that. So, the person will think twice or more if they intend to corrupt.

Ladies and gentlemen, bad habit such as corruption which occurs for years can not stop without a resolute step or death
penalty. We can say corruption is the bad old habit which has existed since Majapahit era or more. So the best solution to
stop corruption is by giving shock therapy, the heaviest punishment such as death penalty. That policy also remains the
government to serve people correctly. Because of many good effects for our country so our team absolutely agrees that this
house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptors. Thank you.
2nd speaker affirmative

this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I’d like rebut the argument of 1 st speaker negative team. She/he said ………………………

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is my turn to deliver my argument from social point of view. As the second speaker affirmative team I agree with the
motion today that this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor.

Ladies and gentlemen, corruption will make big destroying and loss the country. Most of the corruptors are state officers
who work in government and members of the house. They enrich themselves by making loss for the country’s income.
While the people, common people or businessmen, follow situation created by the corruptors in the government to give them
some money to make their case or affair to be able to work smoothly and well. We can say that there will be no bribe from
the businessmen if the state officers do all affairs in its place and serve properly. So there is no corruption again. Or the
members of the house just receive salary and do not receive money by breaking the role and law.

We note some advantages from social point of view by applying death penalty for corruptor.

First, society will admit the existence and commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create the
prosperity for people. Death penalty is fresh air for people where they know well that corruptors get punishment heavily.
People are sure that action can decrease the amount of corruptors then become clean from corruptors. It shows that
government can work well. Moreover, the clean government can create the stable society where the people believe toward
the government, especially president who is voted directly by the people. At last, the expectation of the people will come
true to get proper and prosperous life in their own country. Death penalty makes the income of the country increase because
of nothing for corruptors. Then, the money uses for serving people better. For example the corruption by sekmenpora or staff
in kemnakertrans which talks about millions of money hurt the people’s heart. People are doubtful about the work of
government. They take a lot of money for themselves while many people live in poverty condition. That condition decreases
the admitting of people belief toward the government. The situation also forces the president to reshuffle his cabinet because
of decreasing of people’s belief toward the government which consists of many corrupted official.

Second, applying death penalty for corruptor will lose the corruption activities so the society will be proud that Indonesia
becomes the clean country or no corruption action from the grass root until chief of the country. As we know according to
Independent organization in 2010 Indonesia got sixth rank from 146 countries in the world as the country with corruption
problem and got first rank in Asia pacific. Oh my god, that’s very worst achievement for the country which begins new
future in reformation era. It is very ashamed for all people that we are rich country but we have most of poor people. It
happens because of corruption which grows like flower in the rainy season. Getting first rank for corrupting shows
Indonesian officials have bad character. Death penalty especially for corrupted official makes the country stand strongly
beside the country all the world. . I believe that, when there is no really strict punishment in Indonesia, corruption will
definitely be rampant. The death penalty is the answer. Corruptors deserve the death penalty. They are even more dangerous
and worse than a killer. A killer kills one or two people right away. But a corruptor kills a lot of people gradually, slowly but
surely.

Ladies and gentlemen,

People want to live properly and prosperous. The corruption makes the people angry and loses their proud to this country.
Then, they do not believe toward the government any more. That condition is very dangerous for stabilization of society.
When people lose their belief to government, it means the government should be reshuffled or changed. Then to avoid bad
impact from decreasing people’s belief to government so we need to say once again that this house believes that
government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

3rd speaker affirmative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’m third speaker affirmative. Allow me to respond the negative team argument, collaborate first and second speaker and
conclude my team argument.

As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said…….

Then the second speaker negative also argues that…….

Here, we’d like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, so our country will be clean from corruption
activities. ……

Ladies and gentlemen, as the affirmative team of course we support and agree that students this house believes that
government should give death penalty for corruptor. From political point of view, my first speaker said that the policy,
applying death penalty for corruptor, will make the government’s credibility better and the existence of the government to
fight the corruption will be no question again. In other hand political situation becomes stable. She also said that policy to
give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next corruptors appear, in other word the corruptors become chary
or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid to corrupt. Death penalty is as deterrent effect. The young generation also
stays away from corruption activities. The bad habit such as corruption must be stop so it does not become our culture, not
now or not in the future.

Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptors is also supported by the positive law in Indonesia until
nowadays. It begins UU no. 5 1969 and issues the next UU no. 26 / 2000 about human right and UU no. 15 / 2005 about
terrorism. All of UU are released by the government and the house has agreed them. Moreover, Minister of Justice and
Human Rights Patrialis Akbar asserted that the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 does not prohibit the application of the death
penalty for people convicted of corruption. So it is clear that bases on the law the dead penalty for corruptor has strong
power to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said that the main duty of official is to serve
people well and make them prosperous. Corruption action does not support to realize the duty but corruption cut off to be the
clean and good official. Corruption suffers the people so the death penalty is good policy to punish the corruptors.

Ladies and gentlemen, from social point of view, my second speaker said that society will admit the existence and
commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create the prosperity for people. Death penalty is fresh air for
people where they know well that corruptors get punishment heavily. So the social situation becomes stable because the
people support the policy of the government. She also said that applying death penalty for corruptor will lose the corruption
activities so the society will be proud that Indonesia becomes the clean country or no corruption action from the grass root
until chief of the country. So Indonesia will not be the sixth rank in the world as the corrupting problem and first rank in
Asia pacific. That the worst achievement for our country.

Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptor appears good condition in the society. As we know many
corruptions make people suspicious each other and think negative toward the others. Moreover, people are easy to be
provoked and used by certain person or group. There are many bad habits like lazy, indiscipline, leave the work, late, etc.
which appear because of the corrupted environment. For example someone must pay billions of money for certain official to
get job as the state official such as PNS in local and central government so they have less commitment to serve people well.
They get the job because of money, not as professional. That condition also creates unfair chance for some people who do
not have much money for the certain official to get job as PNS.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Corruption in Indonesia is very bad. We can find the corruption every where such as in education department, in the court, in
the office of district, in the police department etc. And it is done directly and indirectly, formal and informal situation. The
corruption really makes the people suffer. They also think government has responsibility toward the worst condition where
corruption has been like culture to do in our country. So to stable political and social condition, government must decide one
serious decision to stop corruption to grow larger. And the answer is by applying the strict punishment for all corruptor that
is death penalty. Once again ladies and gentlemen, our team very agrees this house believe that government should give
death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

1st speaker negative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,

We are negative team. As the first speaker, I’d like to state our team split. I’m the first speaker and I will rebut and deliver
our argument from human right point of view. The second speaker is ….. she will rebut and deliver the argument from
law point of view. The third speaker is ….. She will collaborate and summarize the argument of first and second speaker.
And replier of our team is….. The motion today is this house believes that government should give death penalty for
corruptor.

Ladies and gentlemen,

First we can accept the definition and limitation which are given by affirmative team

Now allow me to rebut the first speaker affirmative argument. She said that…………………………….

Ladies and gentlemen, nobody perfect, this is the word I want to remain you again. It means here that everyone can do
wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. We say that corruption is bad action and need to
be punished, but what appropriate punishment he should get suitable his mistake. And because we are educated person, the
punishment had better to contain education and change someone to be better. Punishment should have good value for
himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the condition for all elements. Death penalty is not good
punishment to give good effect for all elements; it is something like the other face of killing legally. It teaches nothing for
corruptor.

Ladies and gentlemen, as first speaker negative team we’d like to fixed our position that we absolutely disagree with the
motion that this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human right point of view we
have some reasons to support it.

First, death penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the policy breaks the human
right which always appreciates someone’s life whoever he is, without some discrimination. Moreover, death penalty as a
deterrent effect is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation to make someone better, not for revenge.
Death penalty does not full fill the requirements as the good punishment. It just cuts someone’s life. It does not try to change
someone’s character to be better, realize his wrong and does not corrupt again. The most important thing of punishment is to
make someone to able to walk his next life in right line. Kontras said the death penalty did not respect the right to life and
would be ineffective as a corruption deterrent. It said the clause would also hinder efforts to repatriate corruption fugitives
hiding abroad, as well as their assets. Moreover, YLBHI strongly opposes death sentence for convicted of corruption.
YLBHI is of an opinion that a death sentence is against universal human rights. In addition, the death sentence is a
punishment that can not be corrected or overturned.

Second, death penalty shows that the country has become the owner of the rights of life and, of course, it is not correct. We
must come back to the basic of life that Just God can take someone life, not the country or the government. Is there any
guarantee that the punishment decided by court is really right without any pressure from power person? No guarantee, so
how can we punish death penalty if the court cannot run well? For example the court in Pasuruan punishes guilty as the
murder for someone and some years later the real murder has been caught and it also happens for the person who punishes
guilty as the corruption. Finishing someone’s life is not the right of government because we don’t have the best judge,
prosecutors and law which is clean from intervention or some importance of certain group.

Ladies and gentlemen, Someone’s life is not toy to try out about applying fatal punishment such as death penalty, or just
government tries to take the sympathy of people. We talk about life and death of people, so please think carefully. Every
wrong person even corruptor has right to get some chance to repair his mistakes. And the punishment should become a place
to repair himself. Here we conclude that we very disagree that this house believes that government should give death penalty
for corruptor. Thank you.

2nd speaker negative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor

My name is …….. from smk pgri 3 madiun as the second speaker negative team.

Ladies and gentlemen,

First, I’d like rebut the argument of 2nd speaker affirmative team. She/he said ……………… we think …..
Ladies and gentlemen, …..

Ladies and gentlemen, as second speaker negative team we still concert to disagree with motion today that this house
believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. We have some reasons to support our argument from
law point of view.

First, death penalty is not strong supporting of law in this country. It undermined human dignity, was incompatible with
Article 28 of 1945 Constitution that guaranteed the right to life of every individual and that it failed to curb similar crimes.
All people, including the corruptor, have rights to defend their life and the constitution guarantee it clearly. In our
constitution, capital punishment is mentioned as part of human rights that should not be revoked under any circumstances,
too. But, Article 28 (i) mentioned that the implementation of human rights is limited by two things. First, it must not violate
the rights of others. Second, it is restricted by law. So, it is possible for the states issue a law that would impose death
penalty to convicted corruptor. So it is very funny that the government issues the death penalty in law while in fact it breaks
the foundation of our country, the Constitution of 1945. It’s clear enough that death penalty doesn’t have strong power to do
in law.

Second, death penalty is not suitable with ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we know that
the Indonesian government decides to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) into law No.
12/2005. Actually, more than 100 countries in the world have erased the death penalty as the punishment. As the one of the
countries in the world Indonesia should criticize about this condition. In globalized world death penalty has not become the
priority of the punishment again. As the modern country we also live more humanity and think forward. There are many
ways to solve the problem without violence such as death penalty. I say violence because death penalty is to take someone’s
life with pressure. Most of the countries in the world have moved forward by erasing death penalty as the punishment
because of inhuman action, then when we are brave to step such like that? Now, that’s the answer. We must change.

And, ladies and gentlemen, from the law point of view, it is not ideal again especially in globalization era to apply death
penalty as the punishment even for corruptor. According the law, every person has the same right to live and defend from
violence or pressure. Moreover, according the law, punishment is process to realize someone about all mistakes and learns
more to better person and has better life. And the most important thing is the person does not do the mistake again.

Ladies and gentlemen, everyone can make mistakes but it doesn’t mean he never does the right thing. He has done the
valuable things for himself and the others, and now he slips of steps, then why don’t we give them chance to repair the entire
mistake? He can give something useful for this country in the future. Here we emphasize that we disagree this house
believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor, thank you.

3rd speaker negative

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’m third speaker negative. Allow me to respond the affirmative team argument, collaborate first and second speaker and
conclude my team argument.

As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said…….

Then the second speaker negative also argues that…….

Here, we’d like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, that sending the corruptors to the jail or
imprisonment for more than 25 years without some decreasing or life sentence, do the public service free such as cleaning
the river, taking garbage, etc and returning the money which is corrupted and giving fine.

Ladies and gentlemen, as the negative team of course we do not support and do not agree this house believes that
government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human right point of view, my first speaker has said that death
penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the policy breaks the human right which
always appreciates someone’s life whoever he is, without some discrimination. Moreover, death penalty as a deterrent effect
is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation to make someone better, not for revenge. Death penalty
does not full fill the requirements as the good punishment. Then, she also argues that death penalty shows that the country
has become the owner of the rights of life and, of course, it is not correct. We must return to the basic of life that Just God
can take someone life, not the country or the government.
Beside those reasons, the United Nations study has shown that there is no statistically valid data that support the application
of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in corruption level. Both are not proportionally related.
Furthermore, death penalty is not good solution to fight corruption. We must find out the root of the reason why people
corrupt. Moreover, government has responsibility to repair the bureaucracy and service to people because government has
power to create the culture without corruption in all aspects include the government itself. The failure of the handling of
corruption cases in Indonesia is because of politics as well as the bad service and bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal
system.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said nobody perfect. It means here that everyone
can do wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. Punishment should have good value for
himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the condition for all elements. And death penalty is not good
solution.

Ladies and gentlemen, from law point of view, my second speaker said that death penalty is not strong supporting of law in
this country. It undermined human dignity, was incompatible with Article 28 of 1945 Constitution that guaranteed the right
to life of every individual including the corruptor. And she also argues death penalty is not suitable with ICCPR
(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we know that the Indonesian government decides to ratify the
ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) into law No. 12/2005. Furthermore, Article 28I (1) of the 1945
Constitution guarantees the right to life of each and every Indonesian citizen, in line with the ICCPR and law No. 12/2005.
Retaining the death penalty in Indonesia’s penal code (KUHP) is therefore a contradiction and proof of the inconsistency in
Indonesia’s system of constitutional laws.

Beside those reasons, according to Pancasila number 2 says the humanity with justice and wisdom. So it’s clear that death
penalty is not full fill the justice especially for corruptor and it doesn’t show the wisdom of this country.

Ladies and gentlemen, death penalty is not the good answer to fight corruption because there is no statistically valid data that
support the application of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in corruption level. So we need clear
enforcement law, in other word, the most important thing is actually the honesty of law enforcement officers. Then it can
repair the bad service and bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal system. The last we still disagree this house believes that
government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.
Corrupt are criminals were indeed very deplorable and everyone knows it. But we can not forget that he is human just like us
all. Actions that we hate is not the culprit. He also had a future, have become family responsibilities, have an environment
that sometimes expect his presence. All this is a consideration for given death penalty for a corrupt person. In the theory of
criminal law when the judge was about to decide a case relating to an offense, regardless of its form then the Judge should
see 2 sides, the first is the past, which indeed it became a problem because it never committed a crime, the latter needs to be
seen is the future First, in the sense that human beings by nature always want the good will be better able to be beyond even
what we think. It means that there is still a possibility of change in moving towards a better course with coaching. Then the
future of the family who became its responsibilities, his son, his wife, and other family members who became her
responsibility. When the death sentence was handed down could be realized so that instead of the state without corruption
but instead gave rise to a new crime figures who were born because the effect of the pressures of life in economic terms
because after after the death of his father could be sentenced to death or the country could be destroyed by the kids her father
became a victim of the death penalty because based on revenge. Things like this should also be kept.
Report this Argument

Con

I agree that the judge/jury should observe but not judge the culprit's past. However, the future is not only about the culprit's
but society's future. If the culprit is let go with a mere 25 year sentence (which can be reduced by behaviour) than he/she is
still capable with destroying the futures of many others. Many others who have never been found guilty of such a crime. A
murderer must face justice, justice and equality. To face the devastation that he/she caused to the victim.