Better Society

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.