Human nature is a tell-tale story derived from numerous predicaments brought about

by society. Human anthropology dictates that it is within the boundaries of our nature to
pursue our self-interest no matter what the costs, but as society has progressed, we in turn
adapted via the enactment of laws which seek to constraint our human behaviour. Thus, in
the present case, the seemingly practical way to decide this case would be to find the
defendants guilty of murder as prescribed by the law of the Commonwealth, but we beg to
disagree with such an erroneous contention, and ponder on the fact that haven’t these four
men, who have undergone tremendous humiliation, and torment suffered enough? Would it
be practical to hang these men who merely acted on a plot originally induced by the victim
himself?
To reiterate, this house believes that the imposition of death by hanging is not only
impractical, but cruel in a sense that the murder committed by the defendants shall be
mitigated to the lower penalty of imprisonment. Thus, to support such claim, I have two
arguments. First, that the defendants were faced with a special circumstance upon the
commission of the crime; second, the imposition of capital punishment would not be practical
to the community at large.
In regards to my first argument, in such a situation, it is but natural for a human being
to act upon his bodily instincts especially when it involves an avoidance of a greater evil, or
for the promotion of the common welfare. When faced with such a circumstance, we are to
succumb to our needs and adapt to an “any means necessary” outlook in order to survive.
In this case, the defendants had no other choice but to act on the plot which was by fact,
introduced by the victim himself, and evidence further showed that the latter concede to the
rolling of the dice when given his turn. Very seldom can you find such a case that fall similar
to this, and if such a case would arise, it would be reasonable to impose such a penalty.
Hence we believe that the actions brought about by the defendants during a special situation
mitigate the crime to which they have committed.
Now, Your Honor, allow me to proceed to my second argument which is that the
imposition of capital punishment in this case is not practical to the community at large. In
criminal cases, the State is always involved and if such would be decided upholding capital
punishment, it would establish a precedent, and that if by chance another case similar to
such would appear in the presence of the courts, it would be unreasonable to give an
automatic verdict without however taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.
In the Commonwealth of Newgarth, there is doubt as to the provision of the law whether or
not it is applicable to the case of the Speluncean Explorers. Because doubt is present, it is
not just to mandatorily sentence the survivors to death but what is feasible is to mitigate the
punishment to imprisonment.
I ask you this question, by killing the defendants, will it give justice to the family of the
victim? No. It will only add up to their pain. Killing the defendants would not change the fact
that Roger Whetmore is already dead. Killing the defendants would only promote rage on
the part of the family of the victim. There are other ways of helping the family of the victim
cope up with their loss and we can start by helping them find forgiveness and such would
not be attained if we kill these poor Speluncean survivors. Let it be known that capital
punishment is against the best judgment of modern criminology and above all, against the
highest expression of love. Let me conclude by echoing the words of the great Martin Luther
King, Jr., stating that “man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects
revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”