Today, we focused on a more philosophical and moral question: whether or not the death penalty should still exist in modern society.

Proposition (Abolish the death penalty):
Advocates for abolition presented a compelling argument grounded in human rights and justice reform:

• They argued that if the government forbids murder, it should not practice it either—execution is, fundamentally, state-sanctioned killing.
• The right to life is a basic human right, and removing the possibility of rehabilitation denies individuals a chance to change.
• They emphasized that justice should offer alternatives and not enforce death as the only or final option.

Opposition (Retain the death penalty):
Opponents countered with arguments rooted in deterrence and justice:

• Without the death penalty, there may be less incentive for people to consider the consequences of their actions, potentially increasing violent crime.
• They warned that if multiple murders result in the same punishment as a single one (life imprisonment), it undermines the legal system’s ability to scale punishment appropriately.
• Some crimes, in their view, are too severe to warrant anything less than capital punishment.

The debate touched on complex ethical, legal, and emotional dimensions. While both sides acknowledged the flaws in current justice systems, they diverged on whether abolition would create a fairer or more dangerous society.