Script

Motion: Death Penalty should be brought back

Prime Minister

Good morning madam chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I am the prime minister and we
the government side strongly believes that death penalty should be brought back.
Death Penalty has been a highly contested issue for a long time. In today’s world,
terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many people believe that these criminals deserve
one fate; death. Death penalty is the maximum sentence used in punishing people who kill
another human being and is a very controversial method of punishment. The history of the
death penalty is a long and brutal one. From the stoning and crucifixion killings of the B.C. era to
today’s methods of the electric chair and lethal injection, governments of one kind or another
have sentenced people to death for thousands of years. While most of the free world has
abolished the death penalty, many of the states within this country continue to use capital
punishment in their criminal justice systems.
Regarding with the status quo, we see that there’s a lot of crimes in the Philippines and
some of the criminal doesn’t deserve to be just in jail such as killing & raping someone etc.
Some people are not afraid to commit crimes because they are not giving them a not so heavy
punishment. These are some of the crimes that are punishable by this sanctioned - murder,
mass murder, terrorism,treason and ,drug trafficking . In the Philippines, a 23-year-old woman
from Indiana, USA, who, the police said, was allegedly killed by two other Americans, one of
them her boyfriend. Her boyfriend, Troy Woody Jr., 21, and their friend, Mir Islam, 22, were
arrested shortly after at a condominium unit on J. Bacobo Street in Ermita. The time is now to
end this kind of situation that killing someone will only be imprisoned for years. With this, we
believe that death penalty is the best action for the people to not commit crimes. Therefore,
this house believe that death penalty should be brought back.
Before I proceed to my argument, let me first state the unfamiliar words in the motion.
First is Death Penalty, Death Penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to someone
legally convicted of a capital crime. 2nd is Lethal Injection, it is an an injection administered for
the purposes of euthanasia or as a means of capital punishment. This house believes that death
penalty should be brought back because of the following reasons:
● First, Death Penalty will reduce crime. Death Penalty will reduce crime in the sense
that, repetitive criminals, serial killers or psychopaths will not be able to commit any
crime again. If the punishment for murder was death, people would be less likely to
commit murder. Also they would never get out and do it again.
● Second, Death Penalty is the justice that victims deserved. Those who were killed
deserves a death penalty. Criminals can spend just years in the jail then get a life again. If
you killed someone, it is not enough to just stay in the jail because what you did is
unforgivable. Also, some criminals do not change and may repeat what they did to
another people.
● Third, The advantages of death penalty have more weight than the disadvantages.
One of the advantages of bringing the death penalty back is that Philippines can be more
safer to its citizens. If we bring back the death penalty, the criminals will be lessen.
 People in the Philippines will be more confident that the criminals will be lessen to their
country. It also shows discipline to the country. It will discipline the people in the country
and those bad people will be afraid to commit a crime because of death penalty, of
course some criminals don’t wanna die.

To further explain our arguments, our deputy prime minister will talk about those again. Thank
you and good day!

Leader of the Opposition

Good morning madam chairman,ladies and gentleman, for our first argument we,the
opposition side believes that death penalty is not a crime deterrent.
As for the status quo, I agree that Philippines really has a lot of crimes, but I disagree
that death penalty is the best action for the people not to commit crimes. As per the Human
Rights watchdogs, they said that "reviving the death penalty will not solve the country's
problems in illegal drugs and crimes. "The Group in Defense of Human Rights and Dignity
Movement (iDEFEND), disagrees with Malacañang's assertion that it is winning the war on
drugs. Spokesperson Ellicer Carlos maintained that it has in fact, caused "many problems in the
Philippine society." And a good example for that is EJK. Extrajudicial killings here in the
Philippines have been the solution for quite some time by the Philippine Government, and
these killings and capital punishment share the same flaw-- they do not, and will not address
criminality. It is clear for decades that in other context, also in other countries, that death
penalty has been inefficient in deterring crime and empirical study reveals this and it only brings
about social costs and perils. Carlos also said that recent developments have shown that "we
have a corrupt policing sector, which is also involved in criminality. And how would we expect an
inoperative, questionable, and dysfunctional criminal justice system implement the death
penalty in the Philippines. Such an ineptitude would leave the system vulnerable to miscarriage
of justice and that the state will be left with "no recourse to correct the actions" once it carries
out a death sentence on a person who later on could be found innocent. Ending the
poverty-inducing system and reforming the criminal system are the appropriate solutions. With
this, we believe that death penalty is not the best action to stop crimes.
Therefore, this house strongly believes that death penalty is not a crime deterrent.
And here are some factors why:

First, there is a decrease in Crime rates after years of banning death penalty.
After the June 2006 ban of the death penalty, there was very minimal increase in the
number of those convicted for murders and rapes, the two most frequent crimes
punishable by death, with very little deviation from the yearly average of 2,558
incidences. The slight increases are due of course to the increases in our country’s
population, which grew from 87 million in 2006 to 101 million in 2015. Indeed, for both
2016 when there was no death penalty, and 2005 when there was, the heinous crime
rate per 100,000 population, was the same, at 2.8. Therefore it shows that the abolition
of the death penalty had not encouraged more heinous crimes, contrary to the claims of
the of the death penalty.

Second, studies abroad also shows that it does not deter 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. It 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. 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.

Third, 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”. Too many Filipinos were
also wrongly sentenced to death before. This may be the single most damning argument
against the reimposition of the death penalty.

And the last is, previous death sentences were also error-prone.
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. It 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 row. 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.

Not only is the death penalty cruel, inhumane and mostly affects those living in
poverty - it doesn’t even work as an effective way to deter people from committing crime, so
it has no worth. Thank you and good day!

Deputy Prime Minister

Good morning to the members of this court.

I agree of what the leader of the opposition defend their side about the death penalty is
not a crime deterrent. But I disagree of what he/she said that after banning the death penalty
on June 2006, the crime rate decreases. There were cases that the crime rate increased more
after banning this. I also contradict that it does not deter crime. And I disagree that all of the
death sentences fell disproportionately to the poor and were error-prone. As a citizen, I
believed that justice will be served to those who commit crimes and not to the wrong ones. And
not all the death sentences involves poor. There are also rich ones that are sentenced to death
penalty.

Yes, we all know that everyday, crimes are being committed by other humans. We all
know that crime is a must-to-address issue because nowadays crimes committed were getting
terrible everytime. And we the citizens don’t want it to happen. Everyday, many people do
crimes, even the younger ones. And for the last years, the government can’t control that

Let’s go to what our prime minister said a while ago. First reason why we need to bring
back death penalty is it can reduce number of crimes committed. There are some countries who
implemented death penalty as a solution to their problem on crime. Some of the countries that
implement this are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Somalia, United States of
America, Jordan, and Singapore. And guess what? Some of these countries have decreased their
crime rates because of implementing death penalty. In 2016, the China has a homicide rate of
0.62 per 100,000 residents. It is one of the lowest rates in the world. In 2015, the murder rate of
Iran is 1.5 per 100,000 residents. In Jordan, the rate of the level of crime committed is 39.74,
which is low. In Singapore, the the level of crime rate is 20.61, which is also low. Sounds good to
our ears because for this today’s situation, it is impossible to have a low murder rate, crime rate
or whatever the rate it is.
 Second reason is it can bring justice to the victims. An eye for an eye. The death penalty
is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, such as murder. Why should a murderer be allowed
to live out the rest of their lives in relative comfort, paid for by the public? To continue to house,
clothe and feed them for the remainder of their natural life at taxpayer expense makes a
mockery of justice. They gave up their right to life when they took the life of another person,
and justice can only be served by their lawful execution. The only way for a murderer to
adequately atone for his or her sin of taking an innocent life is to forfeit his or her own life. Even
if they are not repentant, they still must sacrifice the most because they have taken the most.
Also, the execution of a criminal is the best way to provide closure tŕo the family of their victim.
They can finally put the crime behind them and move on, knowing that there is no possibility of
the person who took away their loved one ever leaving prison and walking free.

The last reason why we push to bring back the death penalty is it have more advantage
to have a peaceful community and progressive country. If there are low crimes committed in
any place, there will be a peaceful life to those residents who lived there. If there is a death
penalty implemented, the criminals will be scared not to do crimes because it can cost too
much to them, especially to their lives. If we implemented this, it can boost the business
industry, the tourist industry, and others kinds of industry to that country. There will be more
investors who will invest to them because they are sure that they can do business safely. Many
tourists will come and visit to that country because they know that this place is safe to visit and
no danger that harms to them. Overall, we can make sure that our country will be more
progressive than ever because there are less harm to all the people and they can move free and
safe.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Good Morning ladies and gentleman,madam chairman.

Continuing the case from side Opposition, I will be dealing with two main substantives as
my LO has flagged. The first one is that Studies abroad also shows that it does not deter crime,
and the second is Previous death sentences were also error-prone. For my first substantive, our
leader of opposition has focused only in the abroad, so now I’ll be focusing locally about this
issue that Death Penalty does not deter crime.

As of March 7, 2017, adoption of a draft law by the Philippines House of Representatives to

revive the death penalty sets the country on a dangerous path in flagrant violation of its
international legal obligations, Amnesty International said today. The idea that the death
penalty will rid the country of 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. This will just earn the country notoriety as one of the few countries to revive its
horrific use.

The proposal was passed with 216 votes in favour, 54 against and one abstention, when the
country is reeling from a wave of more than 8,000 deaths, many of them through extrajudicial
executions in its “war on drugs” since President Rodrigo Duterte came to power on 30 June
2016.

However, Amnesty International is opposed to the death penalty for all crimes and in all
circumstances. Under international law, the death penalty must be restricted to most serious
crimes, and drug related crimes do not meet this threshold. There is also no evidence to show
that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect.

For my next substantive, I’ll just clarify that death sentences may also result to false/miscarriage
of justice. You cannot un-execute someone. Miscarriages of justice are bad enough, but the
wrongful execution of an innocent person takes it to the extremes. If someone is wrongfully
imprisoned they can at least be released and compensated by the state. If they are executed,
however, then a posthumous pardon won’t be much comfort.

I disagree on what you’ve said a while ago Mr./Ms. Deputy prime that death penalty causes a
peaceful community and progressive country. Executions are acts of vengeance, not acts of
justice, because keeping a murderer off the streets and locked up for life is all that is needed to
protect the community. Killing the prisoner is excessive and vengeful punishment. With that
being said, I can say that it won’t result to a peaceful community. And also, you have mentioned
countries a while ago that are implementing this policy. I may say that there’s a reason why the
death penalty is favoured in authoritarian regimes/countries: it is the ultimate form of state
control. Troublesome political dissidents can be mixed in with criminals and drug dealers on
death row, and any criticism can be deflected as being “soft on crime”.

My argument is that “two wrongs do not make a right”. Taking a human life is unethical,
whether it is a crime or whether it is done in the name of ‘justice’. Everyone’s right to life should
be protected by law, including criminals. We should aim to set the example that killing is always
wrong and that there are always alternatives.
Member of the Government

Good Morning everyone.

I agree that everyone has the right to life. However, I believe with the saying of "An eye for an
eye" which literally means that people should be punished in the same way for the sin or crime
that they have committed.

In a society like ours, where violent crime is a daily part of life, people are becoming increasingly
concerned about these crimes. It is not just that crime seems to be out of control, but the fact
that the crimes are so brutal and savage. It is not just murder, but murder of the most vial kind
imaginable.

We should reinstate the death penalty, It is what hardened criminals deserve. Some of the
crimes that are under capital punishment include murder and rape, depending on the country
or state legalizing the practice. For pro-death penalty, there are criminals who are repeat
offenders and not scared to rape and murder again, knowing they will only be imprisoned.
These types of people and those who cannot be transformed should be put to death to project
the majority. And it reduces the number of committed crimes. People who are for death penalty
posit that without it, the number of major crimes like murder and homicide will escalate since
bad elements will not be afraid to do whatever they want.,from dealing drugs to killing other
people. Without harsh punishments for their offenses, criminals will be taking advantage of
weaker people and victims.

According to Introspective Tony Katigbak, He said that it’s time for the government to revive the
death penalty in view of the rising heinous crimes being perpetrated out on the streets and
homes even in broad daylight. Some of the murders take place in full view of the public and
there are others could be drug-induced. Despite CCTV cameras on the streets, lampposts on
roofs of houses and shopping centers, the killers don’t seem to mind being identified. Some of
the criminals are paid for their dastardly act, because they know that even if they are caught
alive they will spend time in prison and eventually released or dug their way out of prison. Our
jails are already overcrowded so it makes sense to dispose of first degree murderers to dispose
of those who are found by the judge of guilty beyond reasonable doubt to execute them. It may
not solve the crime entirely, but the killers may have to think twice before committing the
crime.

In fact, the death penalty should be revived if we really want to make a dent in the alarmingly
high rise in crime in recent years. In the past, criminals that were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of heinous crimes were sentenced to death by lethal injection. And I feel that
if this measure were once again available in our judicial system then perhaps criminals would
have something to fear.

Above all, restoring death penalty can help the community or the society rather, wherein we
can have a safer place to live and it can help to secure the life of the people by making sure that
their place is not surrounded with people who has bad intentions and from heartless criminals.
By reinstating the death penalty It can also builds discipline so that people will not tend to do
criminal thing anymore.I believe that the death penalty should be reinstated because our
children aren't safe nor is our neighbors. We can't sit back and watch how innocent people gets
killed and assaulted for a stupid items. If the police or the justice system cannot contain the
situation, this will result in communities taking justice into their own hands.

Member of the Opposition

Good Morning everyone.

I disagree that bringing back death penalty can change our country’s safeness BECAUSE we
believe that bringing back death penalty in our country can result to a much more devastating
events. Our justice system is flawed, many of our politicians are corrupt. It affects the people in
the process. Death Penalty should be abolished.

First, The death penalty adversely affects both families of murder victims and families of the
accused, according to two recent journal articles. In his Psychology Today blog, Talking About
Trauma, psychologist Dr. Robert T. Muller reports that psychological studies have found that the
death penalty produces negative effects on families and friends of murder victims (referred to
as "co-victims").

A 2012 Marquette University Law School study reported that co-victims had improved physical
and psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where
perpetrators received life sentences, rather than death sentences.

A number of co-victims expressed sympathy for family members of the condemned, but the
death penalty process also can polarize the families, obstructing healing for both. undermine
the principle that the criminal justice system punishes only the guilty and never the innocent.
The death penalty affects everyone who knows, cares for, or works with the death row inmate.
Second, A lot of cases that results to uncertainty, innocent and poor people are being sentenced
to death. It is because people are easily blinded by money.

The poverty incidence here in the Philippines, based on the 2015 PSA data is 21.6%. This figure
shows a statistically significant decrease from 2012 figures (26.6%). The poverty incidence
figures show the percentage of the total population that are considered to be poor.

The connection of these information to my opposition to the re-imposition of the death penalty
here in the Philippines is that the poor has always been in a more disadvantaged position when
the wheels of justice roll. They are more likely to commit crimes due to desperation. They have
lesser capability to get a better defense. This is not be a sweeping statement but this is the
reality. What are the percentage of people deprived of liberty (formerly called inmates) that are
poor as against those who are rich? There is a glaring difference.

Recent news reported plunder was removed from the crimes punishable by death. It is but
convenient for these people in the legislature to remove the crime they are most likely to
commit. It is very glaring that they are doing this to protect themselves.

Corruption is the reason why people are in poverty, and people in poverty, are most like to
commit crimes that is punishable by their proposed death penalty. If we follow this logic, the
people who are most likely to be punished by death are the poor.

In this case, we can see that our country experiences widespread corruption that we should act
on. Let us not be blinded by the end by justifying the means. We cannot achieve real prosperity
without focusing all our efforts on solving the real problem of our country, poverty. Moreover, if
we will bring back death penalty, a lot of poor people are candidates for this law. It is because
some rich people have power to protect themselves by using their huge amount of money. And
that is because of these factors: corruption, greediness, and unlawful acts of the guilty.

Government Whip
Ladies and Gentlemen, as the Government’s Whip, my job is to provide you the analysis and show you
how the government has clearly managed to win all the major points of clash. Firstly, let us take a look at
the 3 major points of clash:
1. Death Penalty will reduce crime.
2. Death penalty is the justice that victims deserved
3. The advantages of death penalty have more weight than the disadvantages
For the analysis:
1.) The opposition seems to believe that death penalty is not a crime deterrent. Clearly the
proposition has stated that Death Penalty will reduce crime in the sense that, repetitive
criminals, serial killers will not be able to commit any crime again. If the punishment for murder
is death then people would be less likely to commit murder. Next, the opposition said that there
was a decrease of crime rates after years of banning death penalty on June 2006, where there
 was a very minimal increase in the number of two most frequent crimes punishable by death but
it is good that the DLO managed to correct the LO that the studies does not deter crime. And
from there, it is obviously proving that Death Penalty is a Crime Deterrent and that’s when our
side said that, there were cases that the crime rate increased more after banning death penalty.
And then the opposition side said that the death sentences fell disproportionately to the poor
and were error-prone but our side believe that justice will be served to those who commit
crimes and not to the wrong ones because not all the death sentences involves poor. There are
also rich ones that are sentenced to death penalty. Another fact when the DPM said..”Some of
the countries that implement death penalty are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt,
Somalia, United States, of America, Jordan and Singapore. And these countries have really
decreased their crime rates because of implementing death penalty”. This only proves that
bringing back death penalty in our country can reduce number of crimes committed. The
proposition has clearly shown you how death penalty effectively reduced crimes.
2.) The opposition has been claiming that every human has the right to life where you said (pointing
to the DLO) that taking life is unethical, or whether it is done in the name of justice and our side
agreed that yes, everyone has the right to life but if that person commit crime such as murder
then that person have given up his/her human rights. Hence, we believe to the saying “an eye
for an eye” where the Member of the Government elaborate it in a way that people should be
punished in the same way for the sin or crime that they have committed and justice will be given
to the victims. Even though it’s unethical to just take one’s life we cannot deny the fact that is
our law that we need to follow. And in the first place, before death penalty brought back, the
government would surely inform us first the basis for this penalty because we have what we
called the term and principal penalty on how penalties imposed in the criminal code of the
Philippines. Thus, we have valid reason why should death penalty reinstate and it’s because of
heinous crimes. And it is sad to know that there are criminals who are repeat offenders and not
scared to commit crimes again because they know that they will only be imprisoned. But, if this
measure, the death penalty, were once again available in our judicial system then perhaps
criminals would have something to fear.
3.) Finally, the proposition told you the last reason why we push death penalty is that the
advantages of death penalty have more weight than the disadvantages. Opposition side said that
the poor are more likely to commit crimes due to desperation and they have the lesser capability
to get a better defense which seems to be the disadvantage of it. But poverty is not an excuse for
someone to commit crime. If there is death penalty implemented, the criminals will be scared
not to do crimes because it can cost too much to them, especially their lives. Then the crime
cases will decrease that will give a safer place to live and it can help to secure the life of the
people. By reinstating the death penalty, it can also build discipline so that people will not
attempt to do criminal thing anymore. And if the death penalty implemented, it can boost the
business industry, tourist industry, and many more. There will be more investors who will invest
because they know that they can do business safely here in our country. Overall, we can make
sure that our country will be progressive because of less harm and safe country.
With this ladies and gentlemen, the proposition side strongly believe that we should bring death penalty
back because it will stop the person from doing crime.

Opposition Whip
Again good morning to all of you. I see your point in every statement you have said, yet I believe
that you are forgetting the very essence why death penalty should be opposed. Let me tell you
the first reason, not all criminals are repeat offenders, some of them when rehabilitated can
contribute to a lot to our society. Second, we should value the right to life which is one of the
human rights that needs to be known and to be respected. Taking a criminal's life is the same
way as killing the possibility of a much better life that can be given to them. Last, I don't
personally think that death penalty can give justice to the victims and can stop crimes. The
government is just wasting time in debating about it when the main problem why crimes are
even existing is not given enough attention.

To summarize our arguments for a more clear information, let me first state our first argument
which is, death penalty is not a crime deterrent proving that crime is not a solution to stop
criminals from committing crimes providing data showing inconsistencies of the reported crime
rate during the time when death penalty is existing in our country. Our second argument is, two
wrongs do not make a right which shows that solving crimes by killing the criminal models the
behavior you seeks to prevent. And the third and last argument for the opposition side is death
penalty can result to a much more devastating events especially in our situation right now
wherein violence is a big issue that the government is trying to solve using violence as well
which support the statement of an american novelist, Wendell Berry stating that, "Acts of
violence committed in justice or in affirmation of rights or in defense of peace do not end
violence. They prepare and justify its continuation.

Therefore for the opposition side, we strongly believe that we should not bring death penalty
back because Philippines today is full of corrupt officials that can always influence, manipulate
and blame other people for their own action. And most especially, pir justice system is flawed
which cannot surely point out the real criminal. All of us deserve to live no matter what we did.
Just try to put yourself on the place of a criminal sentence to death, will you not fight for your
life? Just imagine an execution while you are witnessing how the criminal’s life is slowly being
taken away from him, will you not wish for the execution to stop? Death penalty is not and will
never be the solution to eradicate crime. Everything has a solution but I don’t think death
penalty is the perfect solution to prevent solution. Yes, we all deserve justice only if, it is he kind
of justice that can be respected and truly right.