|
Parliamentary Debate
Brief
For this assignment you will be asked to create a "case
brief" on the given resolution. This classroom
is not a court of law but the assignment will be set
up similar to a legal brief using the following format:
At the top of the page write the resolution.
RESOLVED: because the death penalty is wrong
this house would overturn its use in California.
Next, offer pertinent facts surrounding the resolution.
These facts help to frame the issues.
FACTS: The death penalty is currently in use
in California. Approximately 250 people are currently
on California's death rowi. On average, it
takes ten years from the date of conviction for a felon
to be executedii.
Issues set up the sides for the debate. Issues have
two sides, pro and con, and deal with a combination
of facts, values and policies.
ISSUES:
(Value) The death penalty is wrong (or right).
(Policy) The death penalty should (or should not) be
abolished in CA.
Your advocacy is the side of an issue that you support.
This section will contain the bulk of your brief and
it will be organized in a "case plan" format.
You will advocate either the pro (government) or the
con (opposition) of the resolution.
GOVERNMENT ADVOCACY:
Introduction
The resolution "Because the death penalty is
wrong, this House would overturn its use in California"
deals with the fundamental issue of the death penalty's
moral "rightness" or "wrongness".
The resolution also suggests a course of action that
we, this House, should abolish its use. Therefore, we
will attempt to establish that the death penalty is
indeed wrong and how we can and must effectively abolish
its use.
The death penalty is wrong.
Point 1 - Throughout history the source of moral conduct
for western civilization has come from the church. From
the Holy Bible's Ten Commandments to the dictates of
Martin Luther the church tells us how to act responsibly.
Currently, the Pope is a leader in the religious community
and thus an authority on moral standards. He has publicly
decried the death penaltyiii.
Point 2 - There is a commonly accepted phrase in the
English vernacular that reads "two wrongs don't
make a right". If someone commits a murder, according
to this saying, it would not make the matter all right
if the offender were executed. Does the death of the
murderer bring back the victim?
We should abolish the death penalty.
Point 1 - The death penalty is economically unsound.
It costs the California taxpayers approximately 2.6
million dollars to execute a convicted felon. To keep
that same felon imprisoned for a life sentence of 50
years it costs about 1.1 million dollarsiv.
We are losing money on the death penalty and thus we
should get rid of it.
Point 2 - Innocent people may be put to death for a
crime that they did not commit. If we abolish the death
penalty y it is not too late to reverse a mistake that
may have been made. Take for example the case of Sammy
the Slasherv. Once it was determined that
Sammy had a twin brother who had actually committed
the crimes for which he was convicted and executed,
it was too late. So, in the infinite wisdom of the courts
they tried and convicted Sammy's brother too. He was
soon executed as well to join his innocent brother.
Conclusion
"Resolved: Because the death penalty is wrong,
this House would overturn its use in California."
The government has shown that because the church denounces
its use and because two wrongs don't make a right, the
death penalty is wrong. Furthermore, because it is economically
unsound and because of the inability to fix mistakes
the government has also shown that we should discontinue
its use. Ladies and gentlemen, Speaker of the House,
we beg to propose.
|
