Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by a court of law of a criminal offense. In this issue, I am on the negative side because, in our
country, we don't need the death penalty however, we need an unbiased justice system. The
argument that caught my attention is the negative side pointing out, how biased the Philippine
justice system is. The debater presents a criminal case that shows how biased the Philippine
justice system work, for instance, the case of the Chiong sisters, and the rape case of Pepsi
Paloma. The arguments that were presented didn't change my stance on this issue because the
death penalty is an anti-poor because only the poor or innocent is the one who gets this
punishment. However, people with power and money can get out of this punishment in a
snap. Also, some cases in the Philippines are more favorable with a side that has power even
the alleged suspect is innocent. The death penalty also violates human rights because it is
inherently cruel and irreversible. Additionally, the budget that will be provided in the death
penalty facilities can be used in the education and health system of our country. Supporters of
the death penalty believe that those who commit murder because they have taken the life of
another, have forfeited their own right to life. Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser
crimes, the death penalty is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done.
We all want a criminal justice system that's sensible, effective, and creates a safe society with
less crime—and evidence shows that the death penalty has no impact on public safety. By
abolishing the death penalty, we could focus our time, energy, and resources on supporting
victims and families harmed by violence. It is important to know both sides' argument about
the death penalty because it has both sides want an unbiased justice system that the