Convicted murderers should never be released

Considering the arguments which have been put forward by the proposition instead of incapacitation we propose capacitating them. One thing is very much evident that according to them once a mistake, blunder or an illegal act has been committed by a person then that person’s life should be brought to an end by restricting that life to the walls of the prison only. This is an extremely inhumane and insane approach towards an issue as sensitive as a person’s life and in this case even if a murder has been committed by the convict still what we are talking about is the life of a living soul. Just like the old saying “every criminal is a product of the society” proposition team proves that they are very much part of this society and not the society which believes in change, restitution and reformation because one life has gone does not mean that the one which is still there shouldn’t be given a chance to survive. Also the fact that counter arguing what they have put the rebuttal for the same is that once they have gone to jail and face the hardship they would not like to repeat it as they just want to go through all that again .The side proposition has also failed to realise the effect it will have on their family. If the person is a parent won’t it affect the condition of the of the family and boast their moral. Fine if a mistake is committed but he has already served imprisonment for 12 or more years so he deserves parole or companionship. An eye for an eye then the whole world will be blind and by not wanting to believe that a person can change, we’ll let him die??How different are we all from the convicts then??

the last point put forward by the side proposition is that there can be no assurance that the person has reformed, then is how they suggest that let drug addicts also be confined indefinitely. what is the guarantee that the addict isn’t going to resort back to drugs, so lets confine him also!

in most cases a convict comes from violent backgrounds where from childhood he grows up seeing people vent their anger through violence in such an environment the child grows up thinking that it a rational way of reacting and it becomes a habit. in situations like these when the person is put into jails ad given anger management classes he changes and thus he should be given a chance.
coming to the point that the convicts family will be scared of him, we feel that the family will want their loved ones coming out as a new person rather than watch him rot in jail.

if giving a person death sentence can be against his human rights how is keeping him in confinement for the rest of his life any less than death, so is it not against human rights as well.

According to the proposition, “If life imprisonment is set as the minimum punishment, it will act as a deterrent for future crimes. People will think twice before committing murder”. This argument completely overlooks the significance of the intention behind the punishment given to a convict. The major reason behind giving any sort of punishment to a person found guilty of murder or any act is to make them learn a lesson. But by sentencing them with life imprisonment this intention cannot be fulfilled. The only result of this step would be further acceleration of the detestation experienced by the convict. A full stop will be put to any scope of improvement in the person and it is easy to put a full stop but very difficult to continue writing after the comma. We the opposition believe in continuing writing. Also, according to a report, in Unites States of America, the state spends more than $25,000 per inmate each year which is more than $1 billion in total. We can easily imagine what the figures will be if these convicts are made to live their entire lives in the prison and if the setback to the economies as developed as USA will be so substantive then we can easily surmise how disastrous an effect it will have on the less developed countries like India, Bangladesh,Pakistan,etc. The point that if u keep some one for the rest of their life in confinement then he will try and escape and when he does so he is more blood hungry than before. So by keeping him without giving him an opportunity we are in fact aggravating his anger. First that indefinite confinement does not deter the person from committing crimes in future .Second keeping him in confinement is violating his right to life instead it further elevates the feelings of detestation and resentment. Allowing him to languish in the prison will only frustrate him: not act as a deterrent

It seems that the proposition has a preconceived notion that ‘once a murderer always a murderer’. All they believe is that as soon as the convicted murderer would be set out free, the very first thing he will do is to go out and start killing people again which is ridiculous and illogical. What we believe is that once the convicted has served his term in the prison and has been reformed, we see no reason why he should still be confined in the walls of the prison. Furthermore, what perplexes me is that the proposition has come out with an absurd argument that the prisoners are not at all tortured in the prison and they enjoy their food and shelter. The proposition is far away from the ground reality and is subjected to gruesome violence. The proposition seems to lack any substantial argument and they are just basing their arguments on a single point that the convicted murderer will always have the notion of indulging in homicide. What they fail to understand is that a person can be reformed by paying for his mistake i.e. by serving his term and which cannot be realized by allowing him to languish in the prison for his lifetime. “Who has not hated is not human, but who hates still, loses their humanity”.

If the proposition connotes the reality as “Drama” then all we can do is hope that the bubble they live in will burst some day and they will realize the reality which shouts clearly that ,a mistake was committed, the payment for the same was also made by serving imprisonment for 12-15 years but now the time has come to implement the correction or use the lesson which were corrected or learnt in the corrective institution or jail to build a better future. There are several cases in which some mistakes have contributed to a better character position and improved the role or position in which a person works, which state and support this reality that when this chance was given, efforts were made to use them in the most effectual way possible which can be further proven by the following article in a national newspaper .One of the major points is that we can never be sure about the circumstances or the reasons which had actually compelled the person to take the decision of taking somebody’s life. Moving on to our worthy proposition’s point of “drastic difference” between us and the convicts, all we have to say is that we agree that they have murdered people and that is precisely the reason why they are denoted as “convicted murderers” but the fact that we are not ready to give them a chance to change or wanting to believe that they can change and letting them die, isn’t it instead of making us “drastically different” is actually making us a part of them only??”.

Also, as far as their point of “bad products of the society are made only due to existing bad elements within the society” and “removing them, just like we remove malignant cells from a patient “, we the opposition would like to remind them that similar to this is the case of moldings of the most unusable and worst form of iron, the pig iron to wrought iron which is the most usable form which further helps in improving the condition of the economic society just like the process of reformation or moldings of a “convict” or “bad element” into a more useful person thus helping in building a better society. Now, coming to their point of how the prisoners are not being denied their human rights and not being tortured, the opposition would like to again point out that that maybe the proposition is forgetting that these convicts actually experience the worst form of torture that exists which destroys the person’s very existence which is the “mental and emotional torture” and the number of convicts who can actually bear this violation of their human right is not extremely remote but zero. moving ahead, we would like to point out once again that it was on the basis of the propositions earlier argument according to which “if capital punishment acts as a deterrent then that means that life imprisonment will also act as a deterrent too” that we based our argument which states that “since capital punishment is against human rights, life imprisonment is too.”. It seems the proposition is contradicting themselves only by their present argument. Further coming to their point of how we have supposedly “misunderstood” their argument, our largesse will again allow us to remind our quite forgetful proposition that how can they presume with such surety that ,( to quote them)”these convicts will never go outside the walls of the prison, so we are not worried about whether he is angry or sad.” , when they had themselves earlier stated that there are “resource-poor countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. which have police forces with limited resources, without effective systems “. If, according to them, there are so many chances of inefficiency in the developing countries then the how can they be so sure that these convicts will not try to escape??? and we think it can be guess as to how many escapes take place from the prisons all over the world. This further proves our earlier point that it is the indefinite confinement which is the reason behind the culmination of hatred and resentment which compels the convicts to opt for these steps. In the context of the arguments made by the proposition, we would like to say that if these are the ways through which they are trying to make the society a better place then we are afraid to say that the only thing they are doing is put the society at a much higher risk. They are “preventing” some more “brilliant eyes” to enter the society and make it more visionary. The question that the proposition brought out about not knowing if the convict has changed when released, I would like to point out that we had already mentioned that it is only after observing a change in the behavior of the convict will he be released. they tried to counter our argument on human rights by saying that if life imprisonment is against human rights, so is confinement.
I would like to clarify that keeping someone behind bars for the rest of his life is equivalent t death. He isn’t given another opportunity and is to live the same routine or the rest of their life. They said that by keeping them in confinement for the rest of their life they are doing them a favor, providing them with shelter and food but they are subjecting the convict to life long torture by the officers. They will be ridiculed, sodomised, insulted and beaten senselessly. And if the proposition wants to suggest otherwise, we would just like to point out that the country that believes the most in human rights – America could not assure it in Guantanamo Bay Further more lets talk about China, where the rule is so ruthless that they can mo down students for protesting, we are to believe that the convicts there will not be subjected to torture.

The proposition believes that the anger management programmes, counseling, sessions, medical facilities etc, as recommended by us, for helping the convicts are supposedly not “fool proof” .In
accordance with that. We might say that several other things are also not full proof. For e.g.: the security systems of the prisons, the police force etc of several countries and especially developing
countries like Bangladesh ,Nepal etc and thus convicts or prisoners can easily escape, so forth and so on. However, while analyzing the case presented by them, what we have noticed is that there is a hell lot of a difference between the expenses which will be incurred on the basis of the reason, motive and result desired. One price will be paid to save a life and another to help in ending one. To facilitate the means to an end. Along with this, with the price paid for the classes there will be a potential hope that those expenses surely can be reduced one day but with the policy of indefinite life imprisonment, we cannot have any such hope and can easily imagine that in the long run, it will be the cost incurred in the proposition’s policy which will be higher. Furthermore, the point of the proposition that confining the prisoner in the walls of the jail is economically viable also lacks substance and logic. They need to realize that cost per inmate is much higher than the anger management and other psychological activities. They seem to contradict their own statement by saying on one hand that Bangladesh is an underdeveloped country and on the other by saying that keeping the convicted murderers is economically viable. We wonder how that is economically viable since confining them in the prison would eventually mean setting up of more and more cells and employing more and more persons to supervise the cells which is not so viable for underdeveloped countries which lack the adequate funds and resources. We however feel that unless we give out clear examples it might be a little difficult to understand. Let’s say that once this model of theirs comes into force there are about 10 convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment. Now he state has to provide for these 10 convict and then there are 10 more the next month; they now have to provide for 20 and this number keeps increasing. Instead if they had a counselor the first 10 could have been released and the state would have to provide for less convicts and thus no matter what the time period we consider there will always be less convicts to provide for if they are released. “They need to realize cost per inmates is high. Also if life time imprisonment is the minimum punishment there will be a need to build more cells to provide space for the pre-existing convicts as well as the additional. Instead if there is a counselor then this counselor not only provides for the murder convicts but even those for other crimes as well

We are already aware that the basis of formation and sustenance of a government are its three organs-the legislature which makes the laws, the judiciary which is the final interpreter and the executive which implements them. In the recent past, it has been observed and witnessed final interpreter and the executive which implements them.. One clear message which these steps of the government are giving is that ultimately the motive which sustains is the betterment of society by giving an opportunity to change. This has further proven our point that reformation and restitution and change are not tough to do unlike what side proposition thinks. There are several viable sources which also support our argument. The bible says that “the person should be rather healed than punished because this healing will then help in making that person a better human whereas the act of punishment will only make us lose another life

In numerous cases it has been seen that many murders were committed by people who were suffering from various mental or emotional problems. Tormented childhood, improper upbringing etc are some of the reasons responsible for these convicts to act in such away. What is expected from us humans is again a “humane approach” to help these people. Proper medical facilities etc can be very helpful in these cases instead of just bringing their life to a dead end. There have been numerous convicts who’ve pursued their degrees from the prison and later have contributed to the building and development of the society as proved before. So the point which we the opposition is remonstrating is that many a times the person who is found guilty of an act may actually be innocent. What is needed is, that one chance to be given to the person. That one chance to improve upon the mistakes that were done before. That one chance to welcome a positive change which will help in SAVING a life. To further prove it that’s its society will for such a move is like there are like almost 10000 petition written to USA President to remove the Code Of Criminal Procedure that after serving the sentence of murder in the prison the person should be left on parole after he or she is deemed fit to be a part of the society again. For that matter even social networking sites such as orkut and facebook have groups and community to support the same. This proves completely the point that it’s the will of the people who wanted change in system unlike the proposition who still don’t accept change