You are on page 1of 9

Debate Materials

THBT government should give death penalty


for corruptors
Posted on November 27, 2011 by cheersenglish

Standard
1 speaker affirmative
st

this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptors
Im as first speaker delivering argument from political point of view. The second speaker is . delivering
argument from social point of view. The third speaker is .. Collaborating the argument of first and second speaker
and rebutting the negative team. And the replier of my team is
Ladies and gentlemen,
Id like to define and limit the motion. Government means the president and his cabinet in Indonesia bersatu jilid 2
includes the police, prosecutor and judge who have power to manage and role this country today. Corruptors means
every person who works as the state officer, house of representative, businessman, and all people has done activity
to cheat, take, give and loss the financial of the country and use the money for him. Death penalty means the
punishment given to the corruptors by losing his life. So, the government recommends the court to punish the
corruptors with the death penalty for his activity which loss the country and Indonesian people. The limitation is the
state officer and the house of representative.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The state officer and house of representative have duty to serve the people and this country. And they know well that
their job is to make the people become prosperous. Then, when they cheat, take profit for themselves and make the
country loss or corruption, it means that they break their duty to give good serve for people. Death penalty for
corruptor gives good effects for the political and social in this country. It makes the state officer to stay away from
corruption, then, society will be more believable to them
Now, this time for me to deliver our argument from politic point of view and as the first speaker affirmative I would like
to fix my position that we agree with the motion to day this house believe that government should give death
penalty for corruptor. There are some reasons to support our arguments.
First, the policy will make the governments credibility better and the existence of the government to fight the
corruption will be no question again. As far as we know that many persons who work in the government such as in
prosecutor,police department, court, tax department, etc. corrupt so it makes the grade of believable toward
government, especially president, decreases. The signal shows the bad work of government. And it will influence inconducive situation of the politic in this country. The main duty of government to serve the people will be disturbed
because of the corruptors in every department who make difficulties to the people activity for example business.
Moreover, there will be unfair activity and gap between the government and people. Ladies and gentlemen, giving
death penalty for corruptor will decrease the amount of officers in all departments to corrupt and make difficulties to
people. For example; Gayus Tambunan, a staff of tax department. He gives some help to big companies to
manipulate the amount of tax which is paid to be less than it should be. Then he gets much money from those

companies. He makes the income of the country decrease. He and the big companies make the country loss for
much money. While the small companies must pay suitable the tax which should be paid because of no helping from
the staff like gayus tambunan.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Second reason; that policy to give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next corruptors appear, in
other word the corruptors become chary or deterrent or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid to corrupt.
Death penalty is as deterrent effect. I want to underline here that every 4 years or after finishing the period of the
members of house representatives job many of those members of the house go to the jail because of corruption. For
example the chief of the house of madiun regency and some members period 2000 to 2004 go to the jail in 2004,
then some members of the house period 2004 to 2008 also go the jail in 2008. Moreover, we still remember our ex
chief of madiun city must stay in the jail because of corruption in 2009. Why that condition happen, ladies and
gentlemen? Because the punishment the corruptors get is very low, so many state officer and members of
representative do not fell afraid, they just stay in the jail under 5 years or just pay some billion. From that condition we
are really sure that death penalty will protect the state officer and members of the house to corrupt. Do you think they
will be pleasure to release their life for
sentence to death by firing squad? No, nobody wants to die like that. So, the person will think twice or more if they
intend to corrupt.
Ladies and gentlemen, bad habit such as corruption which occurs for years can not stop without a resolute step or
death penalty. We can say corruption is the bad old habit which has existed since Majapahit era or more. So the best
solution to stop corruption is by giving shock therapy, the heaviest punishment such as death penalty. That policy also
remains the government to serve people correctly. Because of many good effects for our country so our team
absolutely agrees that this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptors. Thank
you.

2nd speaker affirmative


this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, Id like rebut the argument of 1st speaker negative team. She/he said
Ladies and gentlemen,
This is my turn to deliver my argument from social point of view. As the second speaker affirmative team I agree with
the motion today that this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor.
Ladies and gentlemen, corruption will make big destroying and loss the country. Most of the corruptors are state
officers who work in government and members of the house. They enrich themselves by making loss for the countrys
income. While the people, common people or businessmen, follow situation created by the corruptors in the
government to give them some money to make their case or affair to be able to work smoothly and well. We can say

that there will be no bribe from the businessmen if the state officers do all affairs in its place and serve properly. So
there is no corruption again. Or the members of the house just receive salary and do not receive money by breaking
the role and law.
We note some advantages from social point of view by applying death penalty for corruptor.
First, society will admit the existence and commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create the
prosperity for people. Death penalty is fresh air for people where they know well that corruptors get punishment
heavily. People are sure that action can decrease the amount of corruptors then become clean from corruptors. It
shows that government can work well. Moreover, the clean government can create the stable society where the
people believe toward the government, especially president who is voted directly by the people. At last, the
expectation of the people will come true to get proper and prosperous life in their own country. Death penalty makes
the income of the country increase because of nothing for corruptors. Then, the money uses for serving people better.
For example the corruption by sekmenpora or staff in kemnakertrans which talks about millions of money hurt the
peoples heart. People are doubtful about the work of government. They take a lot of money for themselves while
many people live in poverty condition. That condition decreases the admitting of people belief toward the government.
The situation also forces the president to reshuffle his cabinet because of decreasing of peoples belief toward the
government which consists of many corrupted official.
Second, applying death penalty for corruptor will lose the corruption activities so the society will be proud that
Indonesia becomes the clean country or no corruption action from the grass root until chief of the country. As we
know according to Independent organization in 2010 Indonesia got sixth rank from 146 countries in the world as the
country with corruption problem and got first rank in Asia pacific. Oh my god, thats very worst achievement for the
country which begins new future in reformation era. It is very ashamed for all people that we are rich country but we
have most of poor people. It happens because of corruption which grows like flower in the rainy season. Getting first
rank for corrupting shows Indonesian officials have bad character. Death penalty especially for corrupted official
makes the country stand strongly beside the country all the world. . I believe that, when there is no really strict
punishment in Indonesia, corruption will definitely be rampant. The death penalty is the answer. Corruptors deserve
the death penalty. They are even more dangerous and worse than a killer. A killer kills one or two people right away.
But a corruptor kills a lot of people gradually, slowly but surely.
Ladies and gentlemen,
People want to live properly and prosperous. The corruption makes the people angry and loses their proud to this
country. Then, they do not believe toward the government any more. That condition is very dangerous for stabilization
of society. When people lose their belief to government, it means the government should be reshuffled or changed.
Then to avoid bad impact from decreasing peoples belief to government so we need to say once again that this
house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

3rd speaker affirmative


this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,

Im third speaker affirmative. Allow me to respond the negative team argument, collaborate first and second speaker
and conclude my team argument.
As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said.
Then the second speaker negative also argues that.
Here, wed like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, so our country will be clean from
corruption activities.
Ladies and gentlemen, as the affirmative team of course we support and agree that students this house believes
that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From political point of view, my first speaker said that
the policy, applying death penalty for corruptor, will make the governments credibility better and the existence of the
government to fight the corruption will be no question again. In other hand political situation becomes stable. She also
said that policy to give death penalty for corruptor is good step to protect the next corruptors appear, in other word the
corruptors become chary or not corrupt again and the others will be afraid to corrupt. Death penalty is as deterrent
effect. The young generation also stays away from corruption activities. The bad habit such as corruption must be
stop so it does not become our culture, not now or not in the future.
Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptors is also supported by the positive law in Indonesia until
nowadays. It begins UU no. 5 1969 and issues the next UU no. 26 / 2000 about human right and UU no. 15 / 2005
about terrorism. All of UU are released by the government and the house has agreed them. Moreover, Minister of
Justice and Human Rights Patrialis Akbar asserted that the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 does not prohibit the
application of the death penalty for people convicted of corruption. So it is clear that bases on the law the dead
penalty for corruptor has strong power to do.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said that the main duty of official is to
serve people well and make them prosperous. Corruption action does not support to realize the duty but corruption
cut off to be the clean and good official. Corruption suffers the people so the death penalty is good policy to punish
the corruptors.
Ladies and gentlemen, from social point of view, my second speaker said that society will admit the existence and
commitment of the government to serve totally to the people to create the prosperity for people. Death penalty is fresh
air for people where they know well that corruptors get punishment heavily. So the social situation becomes stable
because the people support the policy of the government. She also said that applying death penalty for corruptor will
lose the corruption activities so the society will be proud that Indonesia becomes the clean country or no corruption
action from the grass root until chief of the country. So Indonesia will not be the sixth rank in the world as the
corrupting problem and first rank in Asia pacific. That the worst achievement for our country.
Beside those reasons, applying death penalty for corruptor appears good condition in the society. As we know many
corruptions make people suspicious each other and think negative toward the others. Moreover, people are easy to be
provoked and used by certain person or group. There are many bad habits like lazy, indiscipline, leave the work, late,
etc. which appear because of the corrupted environment. For example someone must pay billions of money for
certain official to get job as the state official such as PNS in local and central government so they have less
commitment to serve people well. They get the job because of money, not as professional. That condition also creates
unfair chance for some people who do not have much money for the certain official to get job as PNS.

Ladies and gentlemen,


Corruption in Indonesia is very bad. We can find the corruption every where such as in education department, in the
court, in the office of district, in the police department etc. And it is done directly and indirectly, formal and informal
situation. The corruption really makes the people suffer. They also think government has responsibility toward the
worst condition where corruption has been like culture to do in our country. So to stable political and social condition,
government must decide one serious decision to stop corruption to grow larger. And the answer is by applying the
strict punishment for all corruptor that is death penalty. Once again ladies and gentlemen, our team very agrees this
house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

1st speaker negative


this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
We are negative team. As the first speaker, Id like to state our team split. Im the first speaker and I will rebut and
deliver our argument from human right point of view. The second speaker is .. she will rebut and deliver the
argument from law point of view. The third speaker is .. She will collaborate and summarize the argument of first
and second speaker. And replier of our team is.. The motion today is this house believes that government
should give death penalty for corruptor.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First we can accept the definition and limitation which are given by affirmative team
Now allow me to rebut the first speaker affirmative argument. She said that.
Ladies and gentlemen, nobody perfect, this is the word I want to remain you again. It means here that everyone can
do wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. We say that corruption is bad action
and need to be punished, but what appropriate punishment he should get suitable his mistake. And because we are
educated person, the punishment had better to contain education and change someone to be better. Punishment
should have good value for himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the condition for all
elements. Death penalty is not good punishment to give good effect for all elements; it is something like the other face
of killing legally. It teaches nothing for corruptor.

Ladies and gentlemen, as first speaker negative team wed like to fixed our position that we absolutely disagree with
the motion that this house believe that government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human right point of
view we have some reasons to support it.
First, death penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the policy breaks the
human right which always appreciates someones life whoever he is, without some discrimination. Moreover, death
penalty as a deterrent effect is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation to make someone
better, not for revenge. Death penalty does not full fill the requirements as the good punishment. It just cuts
someones life. It does not try to change someones character to be better, realize his wrong and does not corrupt
again. The most important thing of punishment is to make someone to able to walk his next life in right line. Kontras
said the death penalty did not respect the right to life and would be ineffective as a corruption deterrent. It said the
clause would also hinder efforts to repatriate corruption fugitives hiding abroad, as well as their assets. Moreover,
YLBHI strongly opposes death sentence for convicted of corruption. YLBHI is of an opinion that a death sentence is
against universal human rights. In addition, the death sentence is a punishment that can not be corrected or
overturned.
Second, death penalty shows that the country has become the owner of the rights of life and, of course, it is not
correct. We must come back to the basic of life that Just God can take someone life, not the country or the
government. Is there any guarantee that the punishment decided by court is really right without any pressure from
power person? No guarantee, so how can we punish death penalty if the court cannot run well? For example the
court in Pasuruan punishes guilty as the murder for someone and some years later the real murder has been caught
and it also happens for the person who punishes guilty as the corruption. Finishing someones life is not the right of
government because we dont have the best judge, prosecutors and law which is clean from intervention or some
importance of certain group.
Ladies and gentlemen, Someones life is not toy to try out about applying fatal punishment such as death penalty, or
just government tries to take the sympathy of people. We talk about life and death of people, so please think carefully.
Every wrong person even corruptor has right to get some chance to repair his mistakes. And the punishment should
become a place to repair himself. Here we conclude that we very disagree that this house believes that government
should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.

2nd speaker negative


this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
My name is .. from smk pgri 3 madiun as the second speaker negative team.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First, Id like rebut the argument of 2nd speaker affirmative team. She/he said we think ..
Ladies and gentlemen, ..

Ladies and gentlemen, as second speaker negative team we still concert to disagree with motion today that this
house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. We have some reasons to support our
argument from law point of view.
First, death penalty is not strong supporting of law in this country. It undermined human dignity, was incompatible with
Article 28 of 1945 Constitution that guaranteed the right to life of every individual and that it failed to curb similar
crimes. All people, including the corruptor, have rights to defend their life and the constitution guarantee it clearly. In
our constitution, capital punishment is mentioned as part of human rights that should not be revoked under any
circumstances, too. But, Article 28 (i) mentioned that the implementation of human rights is limited by two things.
First, it must not violate the rights of others. Second, it is restricted by law. So, it is possible for the states issue a law
that would impose death penalty to convicted corruptor. So it is very funny that the government issues the death
penalty in law while in fact it breaks the foundation of our country, the Constitution of 1945. Its clear enough that
death penalty doesnt have strong power to do in law.
Second, death penalty is not suitable with ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we know
that the Indonesian government decides to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) into
law No. 12/2005. Actually, more than 100 countries in the world have erased the death penalty as the punishment. As
the one of the countries in the world Indonesia should criticize about this condition. In globalized world death penalty
has not become the priority of the punishment again. As the modern country we also live more humanity and think
forward. There are many ways to solve the problem without violence such as death penalty. I say violence because
death penalty is to take someones life with pressure. Most of the countries in the world have moved forward by
erasing death penalty as the punishment because of inhuman action, then when we are brave to step such like that?
Now, thats the answer. We must change.
And, ladies and gentlemen, from the law point of view, it is not ideal again especially in globalization era to apply
death penalty as the punishment even for corruptor. According the law, every person has the same right to live and
defend from violence or pressure. Moreover, according the law, punishment is process to realize someone about all
mistakes and learns more to better person and has better life. And the most important thing is the person does not do
the mistake again.
Ladies and gentlemen, everyone can make mistakes but it doesnt mean he never does the right thing. He has done
the valuable things for himself and the others, and now he slips of steps, then why dont we give them chance to
repair the entire mistake? He can give something useful for this country in the future. Here we emphasize that we
disagreethis house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor, thank you.

3rd speaker negative


this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor
Ladies and gentlemen,
Im third speaker negative. Allow me to respond the affirmative team argument, collaborate first and second speaker
and conclude my team argument.
As my team rebuttal, that first speaker negative said.

Then the second speaker negative also argues that.


Here, wed like to give some solution and suggestion to solve the problem, that sending the corruptors to the jail or
imprisonment for more than 25 years without some decreasing or life sentence, do the public service free such as
cleaning the river, taking garbage, etc and returning the money which is corrupted and giving fine.
Ladies and gentlemen, as the negative team of course we do not support and do not agree this house believes that
government should give death penalty for corruptor. From human right point of view, my first speaker has said
that death penalty is inhuman punishment although it is used to punish even corruptor. In fact, the policy breaks the
human right which always appreciates someones life whoever he is, without some discrimination. Moreover, death
penalty as a deterrent effect is conceptually wrong. The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation to make someone
better, not for revenge. Death penalty does not full fill the requirements as the good punishment. Then, she also
argues that death penalty shows that the country has become the owner of the rights of life and, of course, it is not
correct. We must return to the basic of life that Just God can take someone life, not the country or the government.
Beside those reasons, the United Nations study has shown that there is no statistically valid data that support the
application of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in corruption level. Both are not
proportionally related. Furthermore, death penalty is not good solution to fight corruption. We must find out the root of
the reason why people corrupt. Moreover, government has responsibility to repair the bureaucracy and service to
people because government has power to create the culture without corruption in all aspects include the government
itself. The failure of the handling of corruption cases in Indonesia is because of politics as well as the bad service and
bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal system.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the beginning of this debate my first speaker has said nobody perfect. It means here that
everyone can do wrong action and it is common to get punishment because of that mistake. Punishment should have
good value for himself, the society and the country so it is effective to repair the condition for all elements. And death
penalty is not good solution.
Ladies and gentlemen, from law point of view, my second speaker said that death penalty is not strong supporting of
law in this country. It undermined human dignity, was incompatible with Article 28 of 1945 Constitution that
guaranteed the right to life of every individual including the corruptor. And she also argues death penalty is not
suitable with ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As we know that the Indonesian
government decides to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) into law No. 12/2005.
Furthermore, Article 28I (1) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees the right to life of each and every Indonesian citizen,
in line with the ICCPR and law No. 12/2005. Retaining the death penalty in Indonesias penal code (KUHP) is
therefore a contradiction and proof of the inconsistency in Indonesias system of constitutional laws.
Beside those reasons, according to Pancasila number 2 says the humanity with justice and wisdom. So its clear that
death penalty is not full fill the justice especially for corruptor and it doesnt show the wisdom of this country.
Ladies and gentlemen, death penalty is not the good answer to fight corruption because there is no statistically valid
data that support the application of the death penalty to be directly proportional to the decrease in corruption level. So
we need clear enforcement law, in other word, the most important thing is actually the honesty of law enforcement
officers. Then it can repair the bad service and bureaucracy of the Indonesian legal system. The last we still disagree
this house believes that government should give death penalty for corruptor. Thank you.