This house would not abolish capital punishment
Debate Rounds (3)
All states have the right to practice their own laws that are in accordance with their state religion, believes and certain borders of international law.
Given the motion that this house would not abolish capital punishment , i , on the negative side , strongly oppose the motion.
First reason is that capital punishment is a violation of the right to life, as enshrined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is explicitly accepted in a variety of international treaties including the European Convention on Human Rights protocols 6 and 13, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Aside from that there is no valid reason on why we need not to abolish capital punishment.
You mention the universal declaration of human rights. Its a 100 year old document that has no concrete on capital punishment, well as the Koran or the bible talk about this problem centuries before Universal declaration of human rights or ICCPR.
Moreover, are you aware of the reason of every country on using death penalty? Most of them uses death penalty to punish persons who had committed big crimes , especially murder, right ? Death penalty is their aid to show people that they are against murder. They want to show people that murder is bad, right ? They want to tell people to stop murdering , but don't you think that they make no difference with the criminal if they use death penalty? They want to show that murdering is bad, but what will they do is also murdering . What are they, a muderers' murderer ?
An other issue: Lets look at Norway. Andreis Breivik murdered 77 innocent people. he got sentenced to 20 years of prison. If he would have murdered ten he would have got the same sentence. I ask: is it rightful that a person who kills 10 gets the same punishment as 77?
If we talk about the right to life. If some one gets murdered, nobody ask him about his right to life. If we look from this angle , does the murderer have the right to life?
there are systems with this is used in a good way. Lets look at Iran. In Iran if someone murders , and is sentenced to death, the victims family may forgive him, and then his sentence will change to X years in prison depending on the crime.
Doesn't the victims family have the right for closure?
As we end this debate , let me state that I am still on the negative side ! Thank you :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.