Motion: Death penalty should not have a place in the modern world.

First Proposition Speaker:

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. The motion for our debate today is that death penalty should
not have a place in the modern world. We, the proposition team believe that this statement is true. I
am Uğur Can and today as the first speaker, I will be elaborating on the negative effects of death
penalty.

My first argument is that the death penalty violates people's right to live. In the modern world,
people are governed by laws, and every crime has a penalty in the law that sufficiently punishes
people without taking their lives away. The use of the death penalty, therefore, is a violation of the
right to life, which is a fundamental human right. This is supported by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

My second argument is that countries that impose the death penalty are left behind as civilizations.
The use of the death penalty is often associated with countries that have poor human rights records,
low levels of economic development, and high levels of political corruption. In contrast, countries
that have abolished the death penalty tend to have higher levels of social and economic
development, stronger human rights records, and lower levels of corruption. This is evidenced by
data from the United Nations, which shows that the countries with the highest levels of human
development (as measured by the Human Development Index) are almost all abolitionist countries.

In addition, studies have shown that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime
more effectively than other forms of punishment. A 2012 report by the National Research Council of
the United States concluded that "research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide
rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on
these rates." In fact, the use of the death penalty may actually be counterproductive in reducing
crime. A 2009 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that "the death
penalty may actually increase the number of murders" by "legitimizing the use of violence as a means
of resolving disputes."

In conclusion, the death penalty violates fundamental human rights and has negative effects on social
and economic development, human rights, and corruption. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence
that it is an effective deterrent against crime, and it may even contribute to an increase in violent
behavior. For these reasons, the proposition team strongly supports the motion that the death
penalty should not have a place in the modern world. Thank you.
First Opposition Speaker: Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.My name is
Görkem, I am the first opposition speaker

As the first speaker of the opposition team, I stand here today to argue against the motion that the
death penalty should not have a place in the modern world. We firmly believe that the death penalty
is a necessary tool in the fight against the most heinous crimes, and we urge you to consider our
arguments carefully.

Firstly, let us examine the issue of deterrence. The death penalty acts as a powerful deterrent to
potential offenders, which ultimately contributes to a safer society. In the United States, for instance,
a study by the National Research Council found that each execution deters an average of 18 murders.
Similarly, in Singapore, where the death penalty is still enforced, the country has one of the lowest
crime rates in the world. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to
serious crimes.

Secondly, the death penalty ensures that the most serious offenders receive a punishment that fits
the severity of their crime. Life imprisonment For instance, instead of sentencing individuals who
commit heinous crimes such as mass murder, terrorism, rape, child and animal abuse to life
imprisonment with the burden of caring for them for the rest of their lives, the death penalty can be
imposed. This not only upholds the rights of the victims but also allows the limited resources of the
state to be used for the greater good of the people. The death penalty, on the other hand, provides a
just and proportional punishment for such individuals. This not only upholds the principles of justice
but also helps to deter other potential offenders.

Thirdly, the death penalty can be used as a bargaining tool to negotiate with criminals. In some cases,
prosecutors may offer to drop the death penalty in exchange for a confession or cooperation from the
offender. This can help to solve cases more quickly and efficiently, and it can also lead to the
apprehension of other criminals who may be involved in the same or similar crimes.

Furthermore, the death penalty is not a violation of human rights. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights recognizes the right to life, but it also recognizes the right to protection against crime
and terrorism. The death penalty is a legitimate form of punishment for the most serious crimes and
it is not a violation of human rights.

In conclusion, the death penalty should still have a place in the modern world. It acts as a deterrent
to serious crimes, provides a just punishment for the most heinous offenders, can be used as a
bargaining tool, and is not a violation of human rights. Therefore, we urge you to vote against the
motion and support the retention of the death penalty as a necessary tool in the fight against
crime. Thank you.
Second Proposition Speaker:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Erol, and I am the second speaker for the
proposition team. I would like to rebut some of the arguments presented by the opposition and
provide additional evidence for the proposition.

Firstly, the opposition claims that the death penalty is a deterrent to serious crimes. However,
research has shown that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime more
effectively than other forms of punishment. In fact, the use of the death penalty may actually be
counterproductive in reducing crime. As my colleague mentioned earlier, a 2009 study found that the
death penalty may increase the number of murders by legitimizing the use of violence as a means of
resolving disputes.

Secondly, the opposition argues that the death penalty ensures that the most serious offenders
receive a punishment that fits the severity of their crime. However, life imprisonment without parole
is also a severe punishment that ensures the offender is removed from society and cannot harm
anyone else. In addition, there is always the possibility of wrongful convictions, and the death penalty
cannot be reversed in such cases. Life imprisonment provides a way to correct such mistakes.

Thirdly, the opposition claims that the death penalty can be used as a bargaining tool to negotiate
with criminals. However, there is no evidence that this is a significant benefit of the death penalty. In
fact, in some cases, the death penalty may make negotiations more difficult, as offenders may feel
they have nothing to lose and refuse to cooperate.

Lastly, the opposition argues that the death penalty is not a violation of human rights. However, the
right to life is a fundamental human right, and the death penalty violates this right. It is also worth
noting that the use of the death penalty is often associated with human rights abuses, such as unfair
trials, torture, and executions of innocent people.

I want to speak much more about wrongful convictions: Now think me as your son, brother or any
loved one, basically some murderer or terrorist group set me a trap with big crime. As a result these
guys killed me your loved one. You will not see my smile or voice anymore, I am dead. But this is not
the key point. After 2 months or 2 years, the real criminal is found out. Now what can you do about
me? Are you going to approve my exit document from prison? You cannot, you can only visit my
grave. This is insane, you guys. The judge killed an innocent person. Now what are we going to do,
give a death penalty to the judge? That is meaningless , Blood will bring more blood. The death
penalty is not a solution in the modern world; in contrast, it is a problem.

We don't have enough time to discuss the actual events of this incident. But I can provide you with
names and dates:

Cameron Todd Willingham: In 1991, Willingham was convicted, and executed in 2004,

Troy Davis: Davis was convicted of the 1989, he was executed in 2011.

Joe Arridy: Arridy was a convicted of the 1936 Arridy was executed in 1939. In 2011, turned out to be
innocent

In conclusion, the death penalty has no place in a modern society that values justice, fairness, and
human rights. Its use as a punishment is not only ineffective in deterring crime, but it also poses a
significant risk of wrongful executions and perpetuates a cycle of violence. As we move forward, we
must consider alternative forms of punishment that prioritize rehabilitation and seek to address the
root causes of criminal behavior. We urge you to support the abolition of the death penalty and work
towards a justice system that truly serves the needs of our communities. Thank you.

Second Opposition Speker: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Mehmet Kadir Sarıkaya and I am
the second speaker of the opposition team. Now, I will rebut the arguments put forth by the Uğur
Can.

Firstly, Uğur Can said that the death penalty violates people's right to life, which is a fundamental
human right. While I agree that the right to life is important, I believe that the rights of victims and
their families should also be taken into account. In some cases, the crimes committed by individuals
are so heinous and egregious that they cannot be adequately punished through other means. For
example, there are many people in our country who have been victims of femicide, rape, child and
animal abuse, at a young age. I would like to name a few of them: Özgecan Aslan, Münevver
Karabulut, Şule Çet and many other women whose names I can't finish by saying in debate. Only in
2022, 334 women were murdered in our country. These people had dreams, these people had
families, didn't these people have the right to live? The death penalty, in such cases, serves as a just
punishment and a form of closure for the victims and their families.

Secondly, Uğur Can argues that countries that impose the death penalty are left behind as
civilizations.I understand your point, but its completely wrong. For instance, Japan and Singapore,
two countries that retain the death penalty, have some of the highest standards of living and
economic growth rates in the world. Japan is ranked 11th on the Human Development Index and
Singapore is ranked 9th, both of which are well ahead of many countries that have abolished the
death penalty.

Furthermore, many countries that have abolished the death penalty have not necessarily experienced
significant social or economic benefits. For example, several countries in Africa and South Asia that
have abolished the death penalty continue to struggle with poverty, inequality, and human rights
abuses.

Finally, Uğur Can argues that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime more
effectively than other forms of punishment. I would like to show a research conducted in the USA as
evidence against this argument. As you can see in these statistics, the crime rate is much lower in
states with the death penalty. The death penalty acts as a powerful deterrent for potential criminals
and sends a clear message in society that certain crimes will not be tolerated. In addition, the fact
that the death penalty is reserved for the most serious crimes shows how much society values the
lives of its citizens and will not tolerate those who want to harm them.

The death penalty is a necessary form of punishment for the most heinous crimes. It serves as a
deterrent against crime, ensures the closure of families of murder victims, and can be cost-effective in
the long run. Although it is true that the justice system is not perfect, only measures can be taken to
ensure that criminals are executed. If we are talking about a modern world, criminals can be
punished with many solutions such as DNA testing, camera recordings, etc. The death penalty must
have a place in the modern world as a just and necessary form of punishment.
In conclusion, the death penalty is a just punishment for the most heinous crimes and serves as a
deterrent to potential offenders. While it is important to consider the rights of the accused, it is also
important to consider the rights of victims and their families. The death penalty should be reserved
for the most serious crimes and should be seen as a necessary component of a just legal system

Thank you.