Introduction
Mrs. Clark, my fellow debaters, good day. I want to begin today’s discussion by transporting you
to a hypothetical scenario. Imagine for a moment that we are gathered here to decide the fate of a
person accused of a heinous crime. The room is tense with anticipation, emotions run high, and
the weight of the decision we are about to make hangs heavy in the air. In this moment, we are
confronted with a profound question: should society have the power to take a life in the name of
justice?
Today I stand before you with my fellow debaters to argue against the use of the death penalty
asserting that it should not be allowed in our society. While this issue has been the subject of debate
for centuries, it remains as pressing and relevant as ever. In its practice, the death penalty raises
profound moral, ethical, and practical concerns that we must carefully examine.
As we embark on this debate, I invite you to consider not only the legal aspects of this issue but
also the profound human implications it carries. The decision to take a life is an irrevocable one.
In the following moments, my fellow debaters and I will present a compelling case against the
death penalty based on our various points.
It is our sincere hope that by the end of this debate, we will all have a deeper understanding of the
complexities surrounding this issue and a greater appreciation for the importance of seeking an
alternative path toward justice and human dignity.
Claim
Our stance is clear: we firmly oppose the use of the death penalty. This debate revolves around
profound moral, ethical, and practical concerns, and in the following discussion, we will present
compelling arguments against the death penalty.
Supporting stance
Interesting facts/Statistics
A majority of Americans have concerns about the fairness of the death penalty and whether it
serves as a deterrent against serious crime. More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say Black people
are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. About
six-in-ten (63%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and
nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.
An article from the Pew Research Center, by John Gramlich on July 19, 2021.
Evidence to use to support
Retribution
Retribution in relation to this debate is the idea that the death penalty is needed to bring about
justice for the victims, the victims’ families, and/or society at large. “The notion that death
sentences and executions provide closure to victims’ families is a myth, says Susan A. Bandes,
Centennial Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at DePaul University Law School. Despite
its popularity as a justification for the death penalty, the closure has no basis in psychological
research, Bandes says, and there is no evidence that executions provide relief to victims’ families.
In fact, research has shown that families often feel re-victimized when an execution does not bring
about the closure they had hoped for.” Deathpenaltyinfo.org . Justice does not bring closure for
anyone and the same death penalty could take years of media-friendly appeals to enact.
Innocence
“Reports indicate over 150 innocent people have been found not guilty and exonerated since the
death penalty was reinstated in 1973.” Brittanica ProCon.org. Innocent people may be executed.
There is always a possibility that humans are fallible, and the justice system is flawed, putting
more people on death row who are guilty of capital crimes. We cannot risk executing one innocent
person just to carry about retributive justice.
Morality
Both religious and secular debates have continued about whether it is moral for humans to kill one
another, even in the name of justice, and whether executing people makes for a moral and just
government. The death penalty is an immoral punishment. Humans should not kill other humans
no matter the reasons, because, at the end of the day, killing is killing.
For morality, Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an eye
for an eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil.
For Retribution, Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that
“an eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty
is needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.
Conclusion
In this debate, we have considered the complexities surrounding the death penalty, its moral
implications, and the need for alternative paths toward justice and human dignity. We firmly
believe that as a society, we should strive for a more humane and just approach to dealing with
heinous crimes. The death penalty, with all its moral and practical concerns, does not align with
these principles.