REVIVAL OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

AFFRIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH:

NEGATIVE INTERPELLATION:

I believe that death penalty does not deter crime. First of all, it is true that our former
president, Fidel V. Ramos, used death penalty as a crime control measure but during the
presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo they abolished death penalty. Why? Because it is
proved and it is shown in the studies that the crime rate didn’t declined when the death
penalty was imposed back again. So, why do you think imposing death penalty as
punishment for heinous crimes will lead to prevention of doing such crimes when in the
first place it was abolished due to ineffectiveness?

Then let us look on the other countries that have death penalty. Canada for example.
Canada is a very good country and when they have death penalty their crime rate was
about 51.2%, but when they started to abolish death penalty the crime rate totally
declined on the past years. And also in the United States, the states without death
penalty have lower crime rate than other states with death penalty. Why? Because
death penalty affects the mentality of the people that sees it. Most cases in death
penalty are national televised or being executed in public that people can see which
affects the mentality of the person which makes the society much brutal. Those
countries or states are very much prosperous than Philippines, yet they can’t still tell
that death penalty is an effective tool to deterrent crimes. Do you think with the poor
criminal justice system here in our country we can properly implement death penalty? It
won’t deter the crime rate right here. Those studies proven that in so many years death
penalty is not effective at all. Death penalty is not the solution to criminality.

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH:

Good morning everyone, I am Khiezna Estino Pakam and I stand against death penalty
for any crime. Me as your fellow countryman is also furious of the criminals especially
the rapists. And I also want the severest punishment for rapists, but certainly not death.
Did he not deserve it? Wasn’t that what you wanted? What about justice to the girl he
abused? These aresome of the questions you might throw my way. I am anti-death
penalty not because I believe that criminals are innocent. However, I firmly believe that
death penalty will not solve criminality, and more specifically, will not deter the
commission of rape. I also believe that the right to life is paramount as enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that the State should not take it away.Did
the execution of those convicted criminals of heinous crimes during the presidency of
Ramos until the presidency of Arroyo deter criminality? No. After them, there were
others who met the same fate. Even during the years when there was death penalty,
rampant criminality remained as a major problem in the country. The Philippine
experience on death penalty points to the fact that it does not deter the commission of
crimes.

Various studies on the death penalty in other countries have concluded that there is no
evidence showing deterrence. For instance, the US-based National Research Council of
the National Academies released a report in 2012 “based on a review of more than
three decades of research concluded that the studies claiming a deterrent effect on
murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded
that the research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not
informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on
homicide rates.”The argument that death penalty is a deterrent to crime, therefore, is a
myth.
In our own setting, the death penalty can very well be anti-poor. We all know how
rotten our justice system is. It is protracted, complex, and EXPENSIVE. Oh, and the
corruption is common knowledge. Undoubtedly, our system favors the rich.
Moreover, this administration is not known as a stickler for due process. In fact, many of
our leaders seem to dislike it as shown by the more than 7,000 deaths brought about by
the President’s war against drugs.Poor innocent suspects are without the capacity to
fight to prove their innocence. How can they afford adequate representation? Our
Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is saddled with thousands and thousands of cases and
acutely lacks human resources. How can it possibly defend to the fullest their indigent
clients? Based on research 95% of people on the death row didn’t even get the chance
to have their own representation or own attorney. The odds are against poor suspects.
The possibility of being convicted despite innocence is high. A wrong conviction meted
with death penalty cannot be rectified. A life lost cannot be brought back, no magic can.
Shall we just let innocent suspects die just because they are poor?
It is also the worst time to even discuss the death penalty.
People’s trust in our law enforcers is most probably at its lowest. What with the rouge
police who kill for money? Can we really trust them to make lawful arrests? What if
moneyed criminals pay to cover their crimes and instead accuse some poor persons as
perpetrators of crimes they themselves committed? It is not the time to discuss death
penalty when among our law enforcers are law breakers who will do anything for
money.
Another strong argument against the reistating of death penalty especially at this time is
the recent HOR decision to remove plunder from the recommended list of crimes
punishable by death. This of course, was done to favor the corrupt in government.
However, if our lawmakers really believe that death penalty is a deterrent to crime, and
if they want to erase corruption and plunder from the vocabulary of politicians, they
should have retained it.
There simply is no logic in removing plunder from the list if they believe in their own
argument of deterrence.
There is a reason why most countries, 102 in total, have abolished the death penalty. It
is because beyond being barbaric, it does not work. In the Philippines, it did not work
and will not work especially now.

AFFIRMATIVE INTERPELLATION

AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL:

There are at least four fallacies that can be charged to the affirmative side. First is ad
ignoratiam, if you are talking about lethal injection being humane and fair enough
because the convicted criminal can’t feel the pain, let me tell you that there was a 52-
year-old woman in United States who was given two doses of lethal injection and the
doctor said that her death was terribly painful and awful. Second is affirming the
consequent, you said it yourself “brutally killing the criminals”. There’s no humane way
in killing. If we want justice, I believe that life imprisonment is a good alternative to
death penalty. According to studies, most Filipinos prefer life imprisonment than death
penalty and Philippines is a democratic country. Life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetual would make them time to realize, regret and repent what they did. Most
criminals who commit heinous crimes have used illegal drugs. Most of these crimes are
drug inflected. And there’s what we call rehabilitation. Instead of killing them, why not
rehabilitate them? If the Philippines authorities want to deal with the root causes of
criminals and drug-related offences, they should support humane, voluntary, health-
focused and evidence-based policies as an alternative. Third is denying antecedent, as
what you’ve said there is no secret that President Rodrigo Duterte is the leading
proponent of death penalty as of now, but let us all remember that Duterte protested
and helped Jennifer Dalquez who was on a death row in UAE for killing her employer.
Lastly is slippery slope to the statement “there are 50% of Filipinos who don’t have
social responsibility because they are not educated, so they will only understand
responsibility through a system of reward-punishment” with that statement it is clear
that there is a larger tendency that the government would be manipulative. So how
about those convicted that really is innocent? They will be silenced forever, to die
without even being heard. There really is discrimination in death penalty.

The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of crimes or drugs is simply wrong.
The resumption of executions will not rid the Philippines of problems associated with
drugs or deter crime. It is an inhumane, ineffective punishment and is never the
solution. The Philippines’ attempts to reintroduce it are clearly unlawful. We must all
say NO TO DEATH PENALTY.