Beyond the moral dilemma, we have to look at the
This is
simple fact that it just doesn't work. It isn't a deterrent:
introducing the death penalty doesn't reduce crime in
any significant way. It isn't cost effective: in a
democratic society, the accused has the right to many,
many appeals because we don't want to kill the wrong
person, as this would be the biggest possible violation
to rule of law. This means that death row inmates cost
far more than people who are imprisoned for life. Now,
we could throw the constitution away, but I'd rather we
didn't. Furthermore, despite the many appeals
available, 4% of death row inmates are still wrongly
accused. A single one is a tragedy. Take into account
that this amounts to a few cases EACH YEAR, and it
becomes outrageous!
So, it doesn't deter anyone, it isn't cost effective, and it
doesn't respect basic rule of law. It protects the public
from one individual, but so would a life sentence, so it
has no added value whatsoever. But what about the
subjective value of "he deserved it"?
By working on the subjective value of "merit" -
encouraging vengeance, basically, only with the State as
a mediator - we don't make society any better. Crime
reform focusing on 1-making the criminal into a better
person, 2-keeping society safe and 3-deterring crime is
WAY better for the general well-being of society than
the simple logic of "crime = punishment". The argument
of "deserving" the punishment thus becomes moot.
One can simply look at northern Europe (or nearly any
other western nation in the world) to see how balancing
security and the reform of criminals is the best way to
deal with delinquent individuals.
Death penalty is not an effective deterrence.
According to Amnesty International, the murder rate in
non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently
lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.
The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely
to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of
drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear
or rage, those who are panicking while committing
another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer
from mental illness or mental retardation and do not
fully understand the gravity of their crime.
1. It is not a crime deterrent.
Critics argue that the death penalty does not really
deter criminals from committing offenses.
because there are criminals who suffer from mental
illnesses and a death sentence will not be able to
prevent them from doing bad things they cannot
control without proper medication.dominated by
people who favor the death penalty and are more
likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all
except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It
means what it says, and spending the rest of
your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free,
is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released
from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death
penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death
penalty is much more expensive than life in
prison. The high costs of the death penalty are
for the complicated legal process, with the largest
costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is
to avoid executing innocent people. The
tremendous expenses in a death penalty case
apply whether or not the defendant is convicted,
let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer.
Homicide rates for states that use the death
penalty are consistently higher than for those that
don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this.
For people who lack a conscience, fear of being
caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn't
reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants
with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people
with money. Practically everyone sentenced to
death had to rely on an overworked public
defender. How many people with money have
been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims
want the death penalty imposed. It isn't
necessarily so. Some are against it on moral
grounds. But even families who have supported
the death penalty in principle have testified to the
damage that the death penalty process does to
families like theirs and that life without parole is
an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep a
system for the sake of retribution or revenge
even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent
crime, costs much more than alternatives and,
worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of
executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.
"The Death Penalty is an Effective
Deterrent"
This is probably the most common
argument in favor of capital punishment,
and there's actually some evidence that the
death penalty may be a deterrent to
homicide. And it makes sense that it would
be—nobody wants to die.
But it's a very expensive deterrent. As
such, the question is not just whether the
death penalty is a deterrent, it's whether
the death penalty is the most efficient
deterrent that can be purchased using the
considerable funds and resources involved
in its implementation. The answer to that
question is almost certainly no. Traditional
law enforcement agencies and community
violence prevention programs have a much
stronger track record vis-a-vis deterrence,
and they remain underfunded due, in part,
to the expense of the death penalty.
02
of 05
"The Death Penalty is Cheaper Than Feeding
a Murderer for Life"
According to the Death Penalty Information
Center, independent studies in several
states, including Oklahoma, reveal that
capital punishment is actually far more
expensive to administer than life
imprisonment. This is due in part to the
lengthy appeals process, which still sends
innocent people to death row on a fairly
regular basis.
In 1972, citing the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Supreme Court abolished
the death penalty due to arbitrary
sentencing. Justice Potter Stewart wrote for
the majority:
"These death sentences are cruel and
unusual in the same way that being struck
by lightning is cruel and unusual ... [T]he
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence
of death under legal systems that permit
this unique penalty to be so wantonly and
so freakishly imposed."
The Supreme Court reinstated the death
penalty in 1976, but only after states
reformed their legal statutes to better
protect the rights of the accused.
03
of 05
"Murderers Deserve to Die"
Yes, they might. But the government is an
imperfect human institution, not an
instrument of divine retribution—and it
lacks the power, the mandate, and the
competence to make sure that good is
always proportionally rewarded and evil
always proportionally punished.
04
of 05
"The Bible Says 'An Eye for an Eye'"
Actually, there is little support in the Bible
for the death penalty. Jesus, who
himself was sentenced to death and legally
executed, had this to say (Matthew 5:38-
48):
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for
eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do
not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps
you on the right cheek, turn to them the
other cheek also. And if anyone wants to
sue you and take your shirt, hand over your
coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one
mile, go with them two miles. Give to the
one who asks you, and do not turn away
from the one who wants to borrow from
you.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your
neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell
you, love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you, that you may be
children of your Father in heaven. He
causes his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sends rain on the righteous and
the unrighteous. If you love those who love
you, what reward will you get? Are not even
the tax collectors doing that? And if you
greet only your own people, what are you
doing more than others? Do not even
pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as
your heavenly Father is perfect."
What about the Hebrew Bible? Well,
ancient Rabbinic courts almost never
enforced the death penalty due to the high
standard of evidence required. The Union
for Reform Judaism (URJ), which
represents the majority of American Jews,
has called for total abolition of the death
penalty since 1959.
05
of 05
"Families Deserve Closure"
Families find closure in many different
ways, and many never find closure at all.
Regardless, we should not allow "closure"
to become a euphemism for vengeance, the
desire for which is understandable from an
emotional point of view but not from a
legal. Vengeance is not justice.
There are ways we can help provide closure
for friends and family that do not involve
serving a controversial policy objective. One
solution is to fund free long-term mental
health care and other services to the
families of murder victims.
1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital
punishment is several times that of
keeping someone in prison for life. Most
people don't realize that carrying out one
death sentence costs 2-5 times more than
keeping that same criminal in prison for the
rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do
with the endless appeals, additional required
procedures, and legal wrangling that drag
the process out. It's not unusual for a
prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years.
Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks,
and court facilities all require a substantial
investment by the taxpayers. Do we really
have the resources to waste?

2. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and
unusual" clause in the Bill of
Rights. Whether it's a firing squad, electric
chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or
hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-
sanctioned murder before a crowd of people.
We condemn people like Ahmadinejad,
Qaddafi, and Kim Jong Il when they murder
their own people while we continue to do
the same (although our procedures for
allowing it are obviously more thorough).
The 8th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and
unusual punishment". Many would interpret
the death penalty as violating this restriction.
3. The endless appeals and required
additional procedures clog our court
system. The U.S. court system goes to
enormous lengths before allowing a death
sentence to be carried out. All the appeals,
motions, hearings, briefs, etc. monopolize
much of the time of judges, attorneys, and
other court employees as well as use up
courtrooms & facilities. This is time & space
that could be used for other unresolved
matters. The court system is tremendously
backed up. This would help move things
along.
4. We as a society have to move away from
the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if
civilization is to advance. The "eye for an
eye" mentality will never solve anything. A
revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an
endless cycle of violence. Why do you think
the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going
on for 60+ years? Why do you think gang
violence in this country never seems to end?
It is important to send a message to society
that striking back at your enemy purely for
revenge will always make matters worse.
5. It sends the wrong message: why kill
people who kill people to show killing is
wrong. Yes, we want to make sure there is
accountability for crime and an effective
deterrent in place; however, the death
penalty has a message of "You killed one of
us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually
using a murder to punish someone who
committed a murder. Does that make sense?
6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and
a more effective deterrent. For those of
you who don't feel much sympathy for a
murderer, keep in mind that death may be
too good for them. With a death sentence,
the suffering is over in an instant. With life
in prison, the pain goes on for decades.
Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in
an internal environment of rape and violence
where they're treated as animals. And
consider terrorists. Do you think they'd
rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong
prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence?
What would have been a better ending for
Osama bin Laden, the bullet that killed him
instantly, or a life of humiliation in an
American prison (or if he was put through
rendition to obtain more information).
7. Some jury members are reluctant to
convict if it means putting someone to
death. Many states require any jury
members to be polled during the pre-trial
examination to be sure they have the
stomach to sentence someone to death
before they're allowed to serve. Even if
they're against the death penalty, they still
may lie in order to get on the panel. The
thought of agreeing to kill someone even
influences some jury members to acquit
rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors
may go for a lesser charge rather than force
juries into a death-or-acquit choice.
Obviously, in all these situations, justice
may not be served.
8. The prisoner's family must suffer from
seeing their loved one put to death by the
state, as well as going through the
emotionally-draining appeals
 process. One victim's innocent family is
obviously forced to suffer from a capital
murder, but by enforcing a death sentence,
you force another family to suffer. Why
double the suffering when we don't have to?
9. The possibility exists that innocent men
and women may be put to death. There are
several documented cases where DNA
testing showed that innocent people were
put to death by the government. We have an
imperfect justice system where poor
defendants are given minimal legal attention
by often lesser qualified individuals. Some
would blame the court system, not that death
penalty itself for the problems, but we can't
risk mistakes.
10. Mentally ill patients may be put to
death. Many people are simply born with
defects to their brain that cause them to act a
certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling,
rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will
change them. Is it fair that someone should
be murdered just because they were unlucky
enough to be born with a brain defect.
Although it is technically unconstitutional to
put a mentally ill patient to death, the rules
can be vague, and you still need to be able to
convince a judge and jury that the defendant
is in fact, mentally ill.
11. It creates sympathy for the monstrous
perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals
usually are looked down upon by society.
People are disgusted by the vile,
unconscionable acts they commit and feel
tremendous sympathy for the victims of
murder, rape, etc. However, the death
penalty has a way of shifting sympathy
away from the victims and to the criminals
themselves. An excellent example is the
execution a few years ago of former gang
leader "Tookie" Williams. He was one of the
original members of the notorious Crips
gang, which has a long legacy of robbery,
assault, and murder. This is a man who was
convicted with overwhelming evidence of
the murder of four people, some of whom he
shot in the back and then laughed at the
sounds they made as they died. This is a
man who never even took responsibility for
the crimes or apologized to the victims --
NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and
spouses, but instead of sympathy for them,
sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight
vigils were held for him. Websites like
savetookie.org sprang up. Protests and a
media circus ensued trying to prevent the
execution, which eventually did take place --
26 years after the crime itself! There are
many cases like this, which make a mockery
of the evil crimes these degenerates
commit.
12. It often draws top talent laywers who will
work for little or no cost due to the
publicity of the case and their personal
beliefs against the morality of the death
penalty, increasing the chances a
technicality or a manipulated jury will
release a guilt person. Top attorneys are
world-class manipulators. They know how
to cover up facts and misdirect thinking.
They know how to select juries sympathetic
to their side. They know how to find obscure
technicalities and use any other means
necessary to get their client off without any
punishment. Luckily, most criminal
defendants cannot afford to hire these top
guns; they must make do with a low-paid
public defender or some other cheaper
attorney. However, a death penalty case
changes everything. First of all, a death
penalty case almost always garners
significant media attention. Lawyers want
that exposure, which enhances their name
recognition & reputation for potential future
plantiffs and defendants. Second of all,
thousands of attorneys have made their
personal crusade in life the stomping out of
the death penalty. Entire organizations have
sprung up to fight death penalty cases, often
providing all the funding for a legal defense.
For an example, look no further than
the Casey Anthony trial, in which a pool of
top attorneys took on a high profile death
 penalty case and used voir dire and
peremptory challenges to craft one of the
stupidest juries on record, who ended up
ignoring facts and common sense or release
an obviously guilty woman who killed her
daughter. After the "not guilty" verdict was
rendered, defense attorneys such as Cheney
Mason went into long-winded speeches for
the media about the evils of the death
penalty.
13. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the
victim back to life. Perhaps the biggest
reason to ban the death penalty is that it
doesn't change the fact that the victim is
gone and will never come back. Hate,
revenge, and anger will never cure the
emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is
the only way to start the healing process,
and this won't happen in a revenge-focused
individual.
Practicability As the third speaker of the Negative team,
I strongly oppose to this resolution, Resolved, That
Death Penalty Be Restored in the Philippines. Why?
Because Death Penalty deprives people the right to life.
In Article II, Sectional of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states: “The State values the dignity of
every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights”. The Commission on Human Rights has
opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the
death penalty law In the
Philippines on the ground that It offends the diligently
of human person and human rights. The abolition of the
death penalty by the 1987 Constitution was a very big
step towards a practical recognition of the dignity of
every human being created to the image and likeness of
God, and of the value of human life from its conception
to its natural end. Every human being has the inherent
right to life and this right must be protected by law.
However, this right is not as sacrosanct and Inviolable as
it sounds.
The mall principle In human rights law Is that no-one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. Amnesty
International (www. Misinterpretation_org_ retrieved
January 18, 2013) states, “The death penalty violates
the right to life. ” Capital punishment contradicts our
moral beliefs and claims of a fair and just government.
This makes the death penalty our most fundamental
human rights violation. It is the denial of the most basic
human rights. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death
Penalty www. Cad. Org retrieved January 15, 2013)
states, “We don’t cut off the hands of thieves to protect
property; we do not stone adulterers to stop adultery.
We consider that barbaric. Yet we continue to take life
as a means of protecting life. ” No person, government-
affiliated or not, has the right to decide if another
human is worthy or unworthy of life. Our natural rights
as humans, which cannot be taken away by the
government, include the right to life….
ARGUMENTS
1) Crime rates have fallen even without the
death penalty.
Many people justify the return of the death penalty
because of its purported ability to quell the rising
tide of criminality plaguing the country. The idea is
that executing felons for committing heinous crimes
will deter future criminals, thus lowering crime
rates.
But Figure 1 shows that from 1978 to 2008 there
had been a general decline in the incidence of
“index crimes”. These are crimes that occur with
“sufficient regularity” and have “socioeconomic
significance”, including some “heinous” ones like
murder and rape.
Figure 1. Source: PSA, PNP. Note: Data cover 1978 to 2008.
According to the PNP, 'index crimes' are those considered to
have socioeconomic significance and 'occur with sufficient
regularity to be meaningful'. These include the following
crimes against persons (e.g., murder, homicide, physical
injury, rape) and crimes against property (e.g., robbery, theft,
carnapping). Also note that the PNP made methodological
changes since 2009 making data thereon incomparable to
previous data.
Crime data are usually laden with many caveats,
most notably underreporting. But despite these
limitations, Figure 1 suggests at least 3 things.
First, the supposed “rising tide” of criminality is
more of a myth than a fact: index crimes have, in
fact, been falling steadily since the early 1990s.
Second, even in the years without the death penalty,
the index crime rate had plummeted. Hence, the
death penalty is not necessary to see a fall in crime
rates.
Third, even after a record number of executions in
1999 (when Leo Echegaray and 6 others were put to
death by lethal injection), no pronounced drop in
index crimes was observed. The incidence of index
crimes even rose by 8.8% from 1999 to 2002.
2) Studies abroad could also not find strong
evidence the death penalty deters crime.
Many other countries also fail to see compelling
evidence the death penalty deters crime.
In the US, for example, the death penalty alone
could not explain the great decline in homicide rates
observed in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows that the
homicide rates in Texas, California, and New York
had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the
1990s. This is despite the fact that these 3 states
used the death penalty very differently: Whereas
Texas executed 447 people over that period,
California executed just 13 people, and New York
executed no one.
Figure 2. Source: Nagin & Pepper [2012] Deterrence and the
death penalty. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. Note: Data cover 1974 to 2009.
Indeed, the US National Research Council
concluded in 2012 that, “research to date…is not
informative about whether capital punishment
decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide
rates.”
In Asia, a separate study reached the same
conclusion when it compared the homicide rates in
Singapore (a country of many executions) and Hong
Kong (few executions). More recent research
also shows that, instead of imposing harsher
punishments, a higher certainty of being caught
may be more effective in deterring crime.
3) Previous death sentences fell
disproportionately on the poor.
The death penalty, as applied in the Philippines
before, was not only unnecessary in reducing crime
but also largely anti-poor: poor inmates were more
likely to be sentenced to death than rich inmates.
Back in 2004 the Free Legal Assistance Group
(FLAG) did a survey of 890 death row inmates.
Among other things, FLAG found that 79% of
death row inmates did not reach college and 63%
were previously employed in blue-collar work in
sectors like agriculture, transport, and construction.
Most tellingly, two-thirds of death row inmates had
a monthly wage on or below the minimum wage
(see Figure 3). Meanwhile, less than 1% of death
row inmates earned a monthly wage of more than
P50,000.One main reason behind this disparity is
that rich inmates have much more resources to
aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g., hiring
a battery of lawyers) compared to poor inmates.
Unless this imbalance is addressed,the death penalty
will only continue to be a vehicle for “selective
justice”.
Figure 3. Source: FLAG (2004) 'Socio-economic profile of
capital offenders in the Philippines'. Note: Income brackets are
in nominal terms.
4) Previous death sentences were also error-
prone.
Too many Filipinos were also wrongly sentenced to
death before.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs.
Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court admitted that a
vast majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed
the death penalty during the time it was available as
a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.
Figure 4 shows that of the 907 death convictions
that went to the Supreme Court for review, as many
as 72% were erroneously decided upon. These cases
were returned to lower courts for further
proceedings, reduced to life imprisonment, or even
reversed to acquittal. By detecting these errors, a
total of 651 out of 907 lives were saved from lethal
injection.
Unless this alarmingly high rate of “judicial errors”
is fixed, bringing back the death penalty will only
put more innocent people on death
Figure 4. Source: People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July
7, 2004. Note: Data were collected by the Judicial Records
Office of the Supreme Court as of June 8, 2004.
Conclusion: The death penalty is a naïve way
of dealing with criminality
The death penalty can be assailed on many grounds,
whether moral, philosophical, or legal. But just by
focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the
death penalty, as used in the past, was largely
unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime.
Even assuming for a moment that it was a deterrent,
the death penalty tended to discriminate against the
poor and was subject to alarmingly high error rates.
It is no wonder that so many countries around the
world today have abolished the death penalty rather
than retained it. As of 2015, 140 countries have
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than

many of our politicians will care to admit.
Reinstating the death penalty – and equating death
with justice – is a patently naïve and simplistic way
of going about it. – Rappler.com