DEATH PENALTY

 OPENING STATEMENT
The death penalty, also known as a capital punishment, it violates the right to life which
happens to be the most basic of all human rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhumane and
degrading treatment or punishment. The death penalty is discriminatory. It is generally used
against the most vulnerable in society, especially the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, and
people with mental disabilities. Some governments use it to silence their opponents. The
death penalty should not be reinstated in the Philippines it is an irreversible act that has
wrongfully killed many innocent people, and preventing correction of mistakes by the justice
system. Democratic societies must provide due process, and evidence shows even well-
functioning legal systems have innocent individuals. Furthermore, the death penalty
undermines human dignity which is inherent in all human being.
 FALLACY

Logical Fallacies- invalidate your arguments logic

Hasty Generalization- generalizing
Slippery Slope- A person that one occurrence leads to another
AD Hominem- when someone tries to change the focus of an argument from the argument
itself
Red Herring- an argument that uses confusion or distraction to shift attention
Appeal to pity- provoking your emotions to win an argument
False cause- argument incorrectly
Appel to force- threat

 No State should have the power to take a person's life.

In Article III or the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines has committed to
ensuring that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. The government has also vowed to protect the life and liberty of all individuals, and to
give the highest priority to the right of all people to human dignity.
As the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, the death penalty directly vi
lates these Constitutional provisions.

 It is irrevocable.
In 2004, the Supreme Court admitted in that 71.77% of death penalty convictions were
wrong and were either modified or overturned. In that eleven-year period since the re-
imposition of the death penalty in 1993, approximately 1,493 cases of capital punishment
were imposed, but only 230 of these were affirmed. The Philippine justice system can make
mistakes, and the imposition of the death penalty on innocent people has grave
consequences that can never be reversed.

 It is unfair and anti-poor.

if the death penalty is to be restored in the Philippines, people living in poverty will
continue to bear the brunt of wrongful convictions and death sentences. Before capital
punishment was abolished in 2006, 81% of the 1,121 inmates on death row worked low-
income jobs (in the sales, service, factory, agricultural, transport, or construction sectors)
and 73% earned less than 10,000 PHP a month. In the Philippines, defending a capital case
can be conservatively estimated at 329,000 PHP a year-significantly more than what many
inmates can afford.
Also Supreme Court has recognized that the error rate in imposing the death sentence is 71.77%. As
proven by studies, that those facing execution are mostly from the poor, with no access to competent
lawyers nor to decent education that empower them about their rights.

 ACCORDING TO WORLD COALITION

The death penalty in the Philippines will continue to burden poverty-stricken individuals
with wrongful convictions and death sentences. Before 2006, 81% of inmates on death row
worked low-income jobs, earning less than 10,000 PHP a month. Defense costs for capital
cases are estimated at 329,000 PHP a year, disproportionately affecting the poor and
powerless.

Leo Pilo Echegaray, the first person to be executed by lethal injection in the Philippines in
1999. was a fish vendor. His case at the Supreme Court demonstrates that Republic Act
7659: An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes at that time was
"militated against the poor and the powerless in society-those who cannot afford the legal
services necessary in capital crimes, where extensive preparation, investigation, research
and presentation are required".
 It is inhuman, cruel, and degrading.
In 1994, prisoners sentenced to death in the Philippines could wait between 12 and 18
months for their execution, potentially exposing them to extreme psychological stress for a
year or more. In other countries, such as the USA, prisoners can remain on death row for
over a decade sometimes well over 20 years. In addition to this, many of them suffer from
inhumane conditions in prisons, where law enforcers would subject them to ill-treatment,
torture, and verbal and/or physical threats, Richard Ong, for example, was sentenced to
death in 1996 and claims that he was blindfolded, tortured with electric shocks, and forced
into confession by government official. People can also suffer from failed executions, which
increases their suffering. In April 1950, Alejandro Carillo was sentenced to die via the
electric chair. During his execution, an electric malfunction occurred, and he had to be
electrocuted twice before being declared dead

 . It is in direct violation of international standards and treaties.

The Philippines is a signatory to various international human rights instruments that ensure
the protection of the right to life and abolition of the death penalty, including the ICCPR-
OP2. The Protocol has no clause for withdrawal, meaning that the Philippines vowed to keep
the death penalty permanently abolished when it ratified this treaty in 2007. If the death
penalty were to be restored in the Philippines, it would constitute a severe violation of its
international human rights and drug control obligations and damage its reputation in the
international community.

It creates more pain and suffering, particularly for the relatives of the
person sentenced to death.
Not only does the loss of a family member result in severe emotional and psychosocial
distress, it also entails financial strain on a family, especially when the defendant is poor. In
the Philippines, the cost of defending an individual in a capital punishment case can reach
up to 329.000 PHP this excludes the loss of income that a family faces when a family
member is in detention and unable to work.

 Not all murder victims families want the death penalty

Several family members of crime victims in the Philippines have also spoken up against
the death penalty, despite having their loved ones murdered. Actress Cherry Pie
Picache's mother was robbed and murdered in 2014 but she has remained a staunch
advocate against the return of the death. penalty in the country. She believes that
addressing the drug problem and ensuring the education of people are the solution to
ending crime, rather than the revival of capital punishment.

 Contrary to popular belief, it is ineffective and does not keep society safer.

Crime statistics over the years do not conclusively show that the death penalty is an
effective deterrent to crime. Crime rates in the Philippines were higher when the death
penalty was in force and, in fact, went from 7.10 homicides per 100.000 population in
 2006 to lower levels in the immediate years after its abolition (5.7 homicides per
100,000 population in 2007: and 6.40 homicides per 100.000 population in 2008).

 Our country is Christian Country

The separation of church and state in the Philippines. Article 2 section 6 states that "The
separation of Church and State shall be inviolable

 What people says about Death Penalty and how it affects them”

One University of Minnesota study found that just 2.5% of co-victims reported achieving closure as a result of
capital punishment, while 20.1% said the execution did not help them heal. That may be because, as one co-
victim described it, "Healing is a process, not an event."

A 2012 Marquette University Law School study reported that co-victims had improved physical and
psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators received life
sentences, rather than death sentences.

explanation: so base sa study na to is ang capital judgement is not really the best way to serve justice, In fact
according to Shane Claiborne, in an article for red letter christians. "To be anti-death-penalty is not to be anti-
victim or anti-justice. But we can insist that we deal with violent crime without mirroring violence and taking
another life" so to be short we can serve justice by not doing the capital judgement.






 HUMAN RIGHTS

According to Amnesty International No matter what reason a government gives for killing
prisoners, and what method of execution is used, the death penalty cannot be divorced
from the issue of human rights. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
proclaims “Everyone has the right to life”. Article 5 categorically states that “No one shall
be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

 Drugtrafficking

a 53-year-old father of five who worked as an electrician on construction sites. An

occasional user of shabu, a methamphetamine, Mejos had turned himself in to local
authorities two days earlier after learning he was on a “watch list” of drug suspects.
The gunmen asked for Mejos, who was napping upstairs. And shot Mejos
  PAO

Not everyone can avail the services of PAO. They prioritize clients who are indigent, meaning
those without sufficient income to hire a private lawyer. There are criteria set to determine
who is considered indigent, usually based on the income and property of the person in need.

According to Philippines news agency that PAO is lacking numbers and doesn’t enough
budget.

Raffy tulfo also said that most of the attorney in PAO does not stay too long, They would just
acquire experiences, then transfer because they are overwhelmed

 ACCORDING TO DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER:

 INNOCENT PEOPLES

The death penalty in the U.S. has always been risky, with at least 195 people wrongly
convicted and sentenced to death since 1973. Despite the Supreme Court's 1972 decision to
declare the death penalty unconstitutional, the issue of innocence was rarely discussed. As
the death penalty continues, innocent defendants will likely be convicted and sentenced to
death, and while reforms have increased costs and time, they have not fully addressed
human error.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Do you think imposing death penalty as punishment for heinous crimes will lead to
prevention of doing such things?

CLOSING STATEMENT
I and my teammates are not protecting the criminals, we protecting those innocent
people accused that she/he is criminal. To be anti-death-penalty is not to be anti-victim
or anti-justice. But we can insist that we deal with violent crime without mirroring
violence and taking another life. so to be short we can serve justice by not doing the
capital judgement. Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong? Lastly,
we believe of the Declaration of Human Rights that everyone has the right to life and that
no one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.