I do not think that the death sentence should continue in the future. The second you realize you've executed an innocent person your mindset may turn from laying in your backyard with an utmost serene mood to realizing you just murdered an innocent person. The criminals also need time to reflect and change their ways, I'm not saying I'm a fan of criminals (in fact criminals irk me a lot) but to not get time to reflect is bizzare. Our system doesn't even give people a chance. What eccentric penalty are we going to do next blow criminals up with dynamite.
This house believes the death penalty should not be abolished because criminal activity is much less feared and therefore make violent murderers such as Luka Rocco Magnotta fearless which resulted in the sever death of Lin Jun in 2012. Do you really want this type of danger in the world? Although Magnotta was charged of first degree murder, he only serves a life sentence. Think of the outrage the world has and the pain the mother has to go through. Also according to https://en.wikipedia.org... it shows that Canada although has less people than China has a slightly higher homicide rate. Why? The sever death penalty in China and the tough gun control prevents death from happening.
Thank you for your speech but criminals won't be running around murdering innocent people if there strictly prohibited to every place except there jail cell. Big criminals like Luka Rocco Magnotto won't be running in circles killing people if he's placed in jail with a life sentence. Its most obvious your going to talk about jail breaks, but when we have spent $17 billion dollars on are prison systems, so I don't think many criminals will be able to jailbreak. Maybe next time before you look at the homicise rates look at the costs we put in to defending our country. In fact evidence startlingly reveals the opposite of this. Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country.
You also said that the mother would go through terrible pain, but if you had a kid would you rather see him die because he did criminal activity or go to jail for being a criminal. I know I'd rather have my kid alive and I don't know what type of person wouldn't.
Are opinions do differ but I hope you acknowledge the links down below.
As you mentioned in your speech, jailbreak is a big thing which is true and to add on to that point what if you take Guzman as an example? The world's most wanted drug lord deeply embarrassing the Mexican government by escaping TWICE from maximum security prison. He is known to trade slaves, drugs and weapons and have killed more than thousands of people indirectly or directly. Should this type of person not serve a death penalty? If he is kept alive, he will not change and continue his drug trades and cause harm to the world. Obviously we know that he did help people but his graceful actions were not in fact so called legal because the money he uses were mainly from drugs. My point is that criminals such as Guzman should be executed for killing so many. I understand that although around $17 billion have been spent on prisons, don't you think there will always be a flaw? Unless we execute these malicious criminals they will still be in this world and still have that chance of killing people. No matter how strong the prisons are, there will always be a flaw and a chance of escape.
Thank you for your speech but I find it odd that you've only countered one of my many points and have not made any of your own in your second argument. Both my opponent's arguments have been weak as you can see from his speeches. You have not even really made a point of information based on my speeches in you second argument. You said that I said Jail breaks were a huge thing, when the only thing that I concluded was that it was obvious you were going to bring it up. In Fact jailbreaks rarely happen. Society may depend on wether we can stop the death penalty, two wrongs don't make a right. We could reduce the people being killed in murders by 50% by stopping the death penalty (the victim plus the criminal). We,as a society are murdering people and breaking one of our very own laws. We are crumbling justice to the ground fragment by fragment and we tell people not to murder. That's like telling people not to bully when your a bully. We are breaking our very own laws by violating the Eighth Amendment which restricts people from using cruel and unusual punishment. If killing people is not cruel and unusual I don't know what is. American humanity may rely on whether the death penalty stops or not. The death penalty is not even cost efficient. My opponent is obviously shying away from my arguments and clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. This concludes my statement and I hope it concludes your decision.
Have you heard of an eye for eye? Well that's exactly what the death penalty is doing. It may seem wrong and brutal to kill someone but to not kill the killer is wrong. Death penalty's are done in a humane way and is not as unusual and cruel as it looks. The prisoner is blindfolded and then executed. It is pretty much like putting down an animal. If animals can be put down why can't humans be put down? It's all the same. Both animals and humans that stand on this Earth is meant to die. By executing prisoners you only end their lives shorter but sooner or later they will die. Death penalty's should be done if you are to stop mass murdering or brutal killing of a man. As I mentioned in my previous arguments, without the death penalty, there will be no fear to kill and killing is what will happen if you don't create the fear. It will keep going until it can be stopped and unless you find a proper way to stop the criminals instead of execution, then you should keep the punishment. I thank the opposition for his argument and I hope l changed what you think of the death penalty