Holly Qiu
Writing for High School
Scalice, AM
7/23/07

Case- Death Penalty

Affirmative- against death penalty

Resolution- “A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.”

I affirm the resolution- “A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.”
Definitions for this resolution are:
Just society- is a reasonable, or morally right group of humans with the same mutual interests and characteristic relationships
Death penalty- a sentence sought by the prosecution for an accused in selected cases where the alleged offense is first-degree murder, a jury must make the decision to punish a person with death.
Punishment- In society, punishment is the practice of imposing something unacceptable on a wrongdoer.
Justice- The quality of being fair. The principle of moral rightness; equity.

Death penalty is the penalty of death for the commission of a crime. I affirm the resolution that a just society should not use death penalty as a form of punishment. The death penalty places impoverished people in disadvantaged positions. With the death penalty, there is a possibility that an innocent person is executed. Death penalty lowers societal standards; it shows society that it is justice to kill someone because that person has killed someone.

The value of this resolution is justice. Justice is the quality of being fair; the death penalty is a form of punishment that is unjust and unfair. My following contentions will explain why.

My value criterion is sanctity of life. Sanctity of life is the belief that human life is sacred in and of itself. Under no condition should a life be taken. Since every human has places to improve, they can change. They should deserve a chance to change themselves. The death penalty places the criminal on death row, without going through rehabilitation, a process which they can change.

My first contention is that impoverished people are in disadvantaged position when dealing with capital murder trial. We all know lawyers are ambiguous in murder-trial cases. The better they are the more expensive they become. In order to succeed in cases and win, defendants need an experienced and well-trained lawyer who usually costs about five hundred to one thousand dollars an hour, which the underprivileged people cannot afford. Therefore the less fortunate people with no financial backing get court-appointed lawyers, who are usually inexperienced in cases such as the death penalty. Because of this, the less fortunate people are more likely to be sentenced to death. On the other hand, wealthy people who can hire well-trained and experienced lawyers, have a better chance to get away from capital punishment. This is unfair and unbalanced justice system.

My second contention is that with the death penalty, there is a possibility the suspects are convicted of a crime that they didn’t commit. Since humans make mistakes, death penalty will take away chances to correct errors. There are some cases where new evidence has surfaced after the conviction, which totally invalidate the conviction. This will give innocent people a chance to their rebuild their life. To prevent this from happening, death penalties should be illegal.

My third contention is that using the death penalty lowers societal standards. Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect. The value of life is lessened. When a person is put to their death that shows that the human life is not worth living. As humans, we should be concerned with the penalty inflicted on society when a life is sentenced to die by a jury of people. Being put to death by a jury of people sounds exactly like a common murder committed by a murderer. A murder is still a murder even if a jury sentences it. Society has learned to accept killing a human is right because that human has murdered another person. With all of media reporting executions, people see the death penalty as what is correct way to take care of murderers. People have become desensitized to what killings really mean. They themselves might see the government legally murder a person and accept it as what is right. Taking one more life or adding more victims to the death count gains nothing. The act of premeditated execution is no better than the accused murderer and is a denial of sanctity of life. People are denying that life is precious. By punishing a person with death, standards of society lower itself to the level of violence and cruelty that was posed upon the criminal. Although a criminal may commit an act of violence that should give no right for jury system or other people to commit the same crime.

The value criterion is sanctity of life. Human life is sacred. Criminals deserve another chance to change themselves, instead of ending their life right away. Death penalty needs to be illegal. Death penalty lowers societal standards and allows people to think that killing is just. It is not. The death penalty is unjustified and should not be used as a form punishment. Therefore for the preceding reasons, I affirm the resolution.