eunoia (PRO)As a punishment, the death penalty makes lesser sense as to how killing the convict who had killed someone depicts that killing is wrong or for that matter any crime. There are not many case studies, which shows that the death penalty leads to a desirable deterrence for committing a heinous crime, be it terrorism, murder, rape etc. And instead, the numbers say that the incidents of crime have rather increased even with the death penalty as a prevailing form of punishment. I do not blame the death penalty for that, but it’s just that it has not made the improvements as it was foreseen. I question why does it still exists in our Penal Code?
Our Fundamental right i.e right to life should not be taken if it does not result in the desired change.
Now talking about some facts:
Between January 1, 2000, and June 31, 2015, the Supreme Court awarded 60 death sentences. It subsequently admitted that it had erred in 15 of them (25%). Now, the question is that a system with such a serious amount of error in its proceeding, could that be trusted to take a life? I quote from an article by a renowned lawyer and MLA Meenakshi Lekhi from the Hindu, “This is reflective in the fact that in the last 13 years, only four people have been executed” we should focus on the word only, I suppose that the question is not how many lives, it is why taking away those lives, even a single one, it’s not something that can be weighed on a scale.
Now, the History and various other Academicians, Lawyers, Bureaucrats, etc, believe in the retributive theory of justice, which says when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that s/he suffers in return. It also requires that the response to a crime is proportional to that of an offence. I have a strong opinion that the law was not formed with the idea of making a person suffer, even if he/she is a criminal, the idea is to maintain order in a society, protect fundamental rights, resolving disputes and ensuring a peaceful society by keeping a check on the troublemakers. But I believe death penalty is not required to fulfill these ideas. To be Punished, yes, but why in the same cold-blooded and brutal manner as the convict killed or did heinous act towards the victim? I believe the punishment should not imitate the crime, that’s nothing but Sharia Law, something which India does not follow. Also according to retributive theory punishment should be given in proportion to a crime. But that’s not what justice is all about, we don’t rob a robber, rape a rapist, murder a murderer or for the matter any heinous crime cannot be punished with the same manner, intensity or proportion as it was committed. Also, that is not the purpose of any punishment. We do have other capital punishments for heinous crimes like life imprisonment, Rigorous Imprisonment, etc.
Also, it seems that the death penalty is for financially poor criminals who are at the aid of the state, while those who can afford a good lawyer have better chances to be set free and this is totally unfair as they say everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Now while reading this some of you might be thinking that I am in favor of the criminals, but I would like to mention that we are not here to discuss crime or criminal or whether we should punish a criminal or not, the question here is do we even need death penalty? Or do the death penalty serve the purpose of law or providejustice?
I would draw your attention towards a famous case from 1980, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, a Constitutional Bench articulated the “rarest of rare” threshold stating that “judges should never be bloodthirsty”. Death must only be imposed where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. The question is that what are such conditions that life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment is unable to serve and that the desired purpose of justice can be achieved only via death penalty, and is the system efficient enough, to be trusted with taking away someone’s life. I strongly oppose death penalty
With this I rest my motion.
Thank You
Return To Top | Posted:
Kush (CON)First of all, I would like to thank eunoia for accepting this debate. It is also my request that the PRO mention their sources, because without them it seems like they are mentioning their facts and verdicts as they please.
Introduction
A Sentence of Life in Prison is Disproportionate to the Capital Crime
Sources
Return To Top | Posted:
Kush: I would like to ask, what is your form of the most severe punishment?eunoia: I think my fellow friend has forgotten the point of the debate. We are not here to decide punishments. We are here to discuss if death penalty is really needed or not.eunoia: Also that is not my job, its the lawmakers who have the authority to decide.Kush: Yeah, but considerng it isn't needed, it is the CON'S duty to provide a better alternative, so what is the most severe punsihment?Kush: The lawmakers have decided that death penalty is valid.eunoia: But it is being highly questioned now. Kush: So, a lot of things are questioned, and the people questioning are pretty much illiterate.Kush: And I still haven't recieved an answerKush: Most severe form of government.eunoia: But this particular thing is not being questioned by a bunch of illiterate my friend. ICJ itself asked its members to abolish death penalty.Kush: But numeous SUCCESSFUL justice systems like US, India, Japan and numerous others still have the capital punsihment, are you trying to convey the point that these countries have retained the death penalty for no apparent reason?eunoia: Also talking about Indian Penal Code the most severe punishment after death penalty is life imprisonment.Kush: Sorry, there was some glitch and I posted the same thing twice. Kush: So, according to you, the Nirbhaya connvicts deserved to live?!eunoia: Its not that they deserved to stay or not but death penalty did no good to the situation. Why don't you focus on some facts instead of talking emotionally.Kush: You yourself stated in your argument, that the death penalty should only be indicted when every other door is blocked, and that is exactly what happens. eunoia: After Nirbhaya there were n number of cases in the country.eunoia: That was not what I stated it was what the verdict said.Kush: Japan is ranked the second country with the least crime rates, and they have capital punsihment as a legal form of punishment. So, no one can argue that the capital punishment hasn't shown desired results.Kush: But you did include it in your speech.eunoia: After that I mentioned after that, that what are the condition in which there is no answer other than death penalty. And can it be done without errors.eunoia: the answer is no Kush: Yes it can, Japan is an example, a vry successful one apparently.Kush: I meant to say very.eunoia: How can you say that crime rate in japan is decreased due to capital punishment only> do have any facts or any evidence?Kush: Firstly, that's hearsay.eunoia: Then should I say that the increase in the crime rate in India is due to death penalty? Kush: And that is hearsay too.eunoia: So you yourself nullified your own statement.Kush: No I didn't because I have facts, unlike you.eunoia: So i would like to request you to present some right here.Kush: In Japan, the death penalty wasn't put into use for 346 yearsn until 2003. Kush: And from since then, the crime rates have dropped by 33.33%Kush: And I consider that to be a remarkable achievement.eunoia: please mention the source also.Kush: Similarly, Singapore is ranked fourth in the best crime rates chart, and even they have capital punishment as a legal form of punishment.eunoia: Pakistan has been ranked 123 in the global peace index that means that crime rates are really high there, they also have death penalty but made no changeKush: And can I also ask how much did the Pakistani government use the death sentence?eunoia: Similarly Chad has death penalty and is on the 120th position in the global peace index. Kush: And the countries I mentioned use it sparingly.Kush: And I still await an answer. Did the Nirbhaya convicts deserve to live?eunoia: So you are of the opinion that death penalty should be used quiet often?eunoia: They deserved a better punishment than death penalty Kush: Would you be so kind to tell us which one?eunoia: They deserved to live and let people see that this is the state in which they have to live till death comes to them.eunoia: After nirbhaya there was a case in rohtak, uber rape case and many more. So it shows that people clearly tend to forget.Kush: Also, in 2008, 10 memebrs of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an extremist Islamist terrorist organisation based in Pakistan, carried out 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai.Kush: The memebers found alive were hanged. Did they also deserve to live and wait for death to come to them even after taking the livs of 174 people?eunoia: Oh please don't go inside these stuff, they are highly influenced by politics and then the real criminal get away.eunoia: Ans that's not justice.Kush: The criminal were the mebers!Kush: Sorry, memebers.Kush: How is that not justice?eunoia: You don't know who really are the criminals. Kush: Some crimes committed are so INHUMANE that not giving the death sentece will be considered as another crime.Kush: I consider the mebers the criminals as they killed 174 people.eunoia: And i would like to request that don't try to evade the point.Kush: Which point?eunoia: you consider, doesn't matter.eunoia: point is that is death penalty bringing and good to the society>Kush: Yes, it deterrs the criminals and provides justice?Kush: So, how is death penalty doing bad to the soicety?eunoia: The verdicts that have been given are irrevocable. So no point discussing them. After is there a change?eunoia: Punishments are not just to provide justice to those who have already suffered, it is to make sure that it does not happen again.eunoia: Its neither doing good nor bad then what's the point still keeping it. Then it is useless.eunoia: We can bring other such amendments that do good to the society rather doing nothing.Kush: Jan 03, 2019 Study: International Data Shows Declining Murder Rates After Abolition of Death Penalty Nations that abolish the death penalty then tend to see their murder rates rise.Return To Top | Speak Round
eunoia (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted: