Arguments in Favor of Abolishing the Death Penalty

1. Risk of Wrongful Convictions:

One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person. Imagine
a person is wrongly convicted of a crime, and they are sentenced to death. Even if new evidence later shows
they were innocent, the punishment cannot be reversed. There have been real cases where people were on
death row for years before being exonerated. If they had been executed, there would be no way to fix the
mistake.
2. Discrimination in the Legal System:
Studies have shown that the death penalty is not applied equally to everyone. People from poor backgrounds
or minority racial groups are more likely to receive the death sentence, even for similar crimes committed by
wealthier or white individuals. This suggests that the death penalty may be unfair and influenced by racial,
economic, or social biases. For example, a person from a lower-income family might not be able to afford a
good lawyer and might be sentenced to death more easily.
3. It Doesn’t Effectively Prevent Crime:
Some people believe that the death penalty stops crimes, especially violent ones like murder, because the fear
of execution can act as a deterrent. However, studies show that there’s no clear evidence that the death penalty
prevents crime more effectively than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In fact, countries and
states that have abolished the death penalty have not seen a rise in crime rates, and some have lower crime
rates compared to those that still practice it.
4. Cruel and Inhumane Punishment:
Many people believe that executing someone is a form of cruel punishment. The process of execution—
whether it’s lethal injection, hanging, or electric chair—can be painful and degrading. Opponents argue that a
just society should not take someone’s life, even if they’ve committed a serious crime. Instead, life
imprisonment without the chance of parole is seen as a more humane option.
5. Moral and Ethical Concerns:
From a moral standpoint, many argue that the state (government) should not have the power to decide when a
person dies. Human life, they argue, is sacred, and even a person who has committed a horrible crime should
not be deprived of their life. They also believe that people can change, and that life imprisonment gives people
the opportunity to reflect on their actions and reform, which the death penalty doesn’t allow.
6. International Trend Toward Abolition:
A growing number of countries around the world have abolished the death penalty. As of now, over 140
countries have either abolished it in law or in practice. This reflects a global shift towards human rights, where
societies are increasingly recognizing that the death penalty is inhumane. If a country abolishes the death
penalty, it can also show that it values human life and follows international human rights standards.

Arguments Against Abolishing the Death Penalty

1. Prevents Future Crimes:
Supporters of the death penalty argue that it acts as a deterrent. The idea is that the fear of being executed
might prevent people from committing very serious crimes, such as murder, terrorism, or kidnapping. For
example, someone planning to commit a violent act might think twice if they know the punishment could be
the death penalty. While studies are inconclusive about how effective this deterrent is, some believe that it still
has a role in discouraging crime.
2. Justice and Closure for Victims’ Families:
For the families of murder victims, the death penalty can provide a sense of justice. It’s argued that when
someone takes a life, they should pay with their own life, especially in cases of brutal or premeditated
murders. This idea is based on the concept of "an eye for an eye," where the punishment matches the crime.
For many families, the execution of the murderer can bring closure, as it ensures that the criminal will never
harm anyone again.
3. Prevents Repeat Offenders:
The death penalty guarantees that someone who has committed a serious crime will never be able to hurt
anyone again. For example, if a person is convicted of multiple murders, there’s no risk of them escaping
from prison or committing more crimes in the future. In cases where a criminal is extremely dangerous and
unlikely to reform, some argue that execution is the only way to ensure public safety.
 4. Public Support for the Death Penalty:
In some countries or regions, the death penalty has strong support from the public. Many people believe that it
is the right punishment for certain crimes. For example, in countries where crime rates are high, people may
feel that the government needs to take stronger measures to deter violent criminals. They may believe that a
life sentence is not enough and that the death penalty is necessary to show that society does not tolerate such
crimes.
5. Deterrent in Specific Cases:
Although studies show mixed results on whether the death penalty deters crime overall, some supporters
believe that it may have a specific deterrent effect in cases of extreme violence or terrorism. For example,
individuals involved in acts of terrorism might be less likely to engage in such acts if they know the
consequence could be death. The idea is that the more severe the punishment, the less likely a person is to
commit such crimes.
6. Appropriate for Severe Crimes:
Some argue that for the most serious and horrific crimes, the death penalty is the only punishment that fits.
They believe that for crimes such as mass murder, child rape, or terrorism, no other punishment is strong
enough to match the cruelty of the act. For these supporters, the death penalty is seen as a way of showing that
society does not tolerate such evil acts and will take extreme measures to punish the offenders.

Debate Script: Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

Moderator:
Good morning, everyone. Today’s debate will focus on an important topic—Should the death penalty be abolished?
On one side, we have team A arguing in favor of abolishing the death penalty, and on the other side, we have team B
defending the death penalty. Let’s begin with team A.

Team A: (For Abolishing the Death Penalty)

Speaker 1 (A1):
Thank you, Moderator.
Let me begin with a very clear point: the death penalty is irreversible. Imagine someone is wrongfully convicted and
sentenced to death. If they are later proven innocent, there is no way to bring them back. There have been real-life
examples where people spent years on death row only to be exonerated later. Once a person is executed, there is no
second chance. We cannot risk making irreversible mistakes. The justice system is not perfect, and we must prioritize
preventing these errors.

Speaker 2 (A2):
That’s absolutely right. Another major issue is the discrimination that exists in the application of the death penalty.
Studies show that people from poorer backgrounds, and especially minorities, are more likely to be sentenced to
death, even when their crime may not be as severe as that of others who escape the death penalty. This shows that the
death penalty is often unfair and influenced by racial or economic biases. It’s a system where the outcome is
sometimes determined not by the severity of the crime, but by who the person is.

Speaker 3 (A3):
Thank you, A2. Let me also address the claim that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime. The truth is,
there’s no strong evidence to support that the death penalty prevents crime more effectively than other forms of
punishment. In fact, countries that have abolished the death penalty have not seen a rise in crime rates. Some
countries like Canada and the UK have much lower crime rates than some countries that still practice the death
penalty. What does this tell us? It shows that the death penalty is not the solution to stopping crime.

Speaker 1 (A1):
Additionally, the death penalty is cruel and inhumane. There are many ways to punish someone without resorting to
execution. Human rights groups argue that any form of execution—whether by lethal injection, hanging, or electric
chair—is cruel and degrading. We, as a society, should focus on rehabilitation and give people the chance to change.
Life imprisonment without parole is a more humane option than taking someone’s life.

Speaker 2 (A2):
Finally, it’s important to note the international trend. Over 140 countries have abolished the death penalty, and many
others have not carried it out for years. This growing global movement reflects a shift toward valuing human rights
and recognizing that the death penalty is outdated and unjust. We should join the global community in moving
towards a more just, compassionate system.

Moderator:
Thank you, Team A, for your arguments in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Now, let’s hear from Team B, who
will be arguing against abolition.

Team B: (Against Abolishing the Death Penalty)

Speaker 1 (B1):
Thank you, Moderator.
While Team A has made some valid points, I believe the death penalty serves a necessary purpose in our justice
system. First, let me address the deterrence argument. Some argue that the death penalty doesn't prevent crime, but
studies show that in specific high-profile cases, like terrorism or mass murder, the death penalty does act as a
deterrent. The fear of death can prevent certain people from committing these terrible crimes, because they know the
punishment will be severe. In countries with high crime rates, the threat of execution could discourage people from
committing heinous acts.

Speaker 2 (B2):
Thank you, B1. Let’s talk about justice for victims’ families. When someone commits a terrible crime, such as
murder, the families of the victims want justice. The death penalty provides a sense of closure for many families, who
feel that the person who took the life of their loved one should lose their own life. Without the death penalty, they may
feel that the criminal is being let off too easily. The death penalty is seen by some as a form of retribution—the
punishment fitting the severity of the crime.

Speaker 3 (B3):
I would like to emphasize that the death penalty ensures public safety. Some criminals are so dangerous that they
will always pose a threat to society, even behind bars. Think about serial killers or terrorists. By executing these
criminals, we ensure that they can never harm anyone again. Life imprisonment does not guarantee this, as there have
been instances of prisoners escaping or continuing to commit crimes while in prison. The death penalty is a clear and
final way of making sure dangerous individuals can’t hurt society again.

Speaker 1 (B1):
Moreover, public support for the death penalty cannot be ignored. In many countries and regions, a large portion of
the population believes that the death penalty is the right punishment for those who commit the most heinous crimes.
People feel strongly that murderers, rapists, and terrorists deserve the ultimate punishment. If the majority of people
believe in the death penalty, should we disregard their views? Democracy is about reflecting the will of the people.

Speaker 2 (B2):
Lastly, when we talk about abolishing the death penalty, we also need to consider the severity of the crimes
committed. For example, imagine a person who kills several innocent people in a brutal and premeditated way. For
crimes like these, the death penalty can seem like the only appropriate punishment. It sends a message that our society
will not tolerate such acts of violence and will not allow the criminals to escape punishment.

Moderator:
Thank you, Team B, for presenting your arguments against the abolition of the death penalty. Now, both teams have
made their cases, and the debate is open for further discussion.