Debate over Death Penalty

Death Penalty
Death penalty for serious criminals has been discussed by our experts. Those
who agree say that death penalty will scare the criminals off. However, those
who disagree say that it is inhuman, not effective and we cannot correct the
wrong sentence after the criminals die.
In Switzerland, this penalty does not exist. Most people argue that the
possibility of making the wrong decision is always there although it is true that
spending life behind the bars is not easy either. Also, every person should have a
chance for rehabilitation. In this way he or she can start all over again in another
life style.
Those who agree argue that there is no use to feed the terrorists in
prison with their money. When they get out, they will create a lot of trouble by
blackmailing and killing people. So, who says that jails will stop them from being
bad guys?
My own opinion is divided. On the one hand, I want to be humane, and
on the other hand, I wonder if those people are worthy of my feeling.
http://iswati_lovejesus.guru-indonesia.net/artikel_detail-15035.html
http://praptiwardani.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussion-text.html
discussion text
Standard competency :
READING
5. Understanding meaning short functional text and essay in the form of narrative, explanation,
and discussion to access knowledge in the context of daily life.
Basic Competence:
5.2. Responding meaningful utterances and rhetorical steps in essay by using different written
language accurately, fluently and accepted in the form of discussion text in a context of daily life.
Indicators:
5.2.1. Identifying meaning of a word in a discussion text
5.2.2. Identifying meaning of a sentence in a discussion text
5.2.3. Identifying a topic of a discussion text
5.2.4. Identifying the communicative purpose of discussion text
5.2.5. Identifying pro-paragraph concerning to the issue
5.2.6. Identifying cons-paragraph concerning to the issue
5.2.7. Identifying a conclusion of a discussion text
an example of arguments in a discussion text

Reading 1
FOR (Pro.)
I believe the wearing of uniform in schools is a good idea. In a recent study, 90% of the British
population surveyed agreed with this notion, for a number of reasons.
The wearing of uniform emphasizes equality; the fact that everyone wearing that uniform is of the
same status, and no-one is better in any way than anyone else. I am sure you will agree that this
is a good moral to promote in young people. A smart uniform also helps to create pride for the
school for its wearers. If children are all wearing the same uniform, they all belong to the same
group, which helps to foster a community spirit and ultimately creates a better atmosphere
among the children.
Wearing a uniform also helps to prevent bad relations between groups of children. Everyone
knows that children can be very judgmental, and so if children were allowed to wear their own
clothes, children would judge each other and make friends according to what clothes they wore. It
is also more than likely that gangs and groups would form think about the situation in
American high schools, where bullying and social segregation is widespread. For example, people
who liked a certain type of music might wear the same clothes and therefore form a clique; how
can this help build the schools sense of community?
There are also more practical reasons why children should wear a school uniform. Uniforms are
usually very reasonable in price. Children would be wearing the uniform Monday to Friday, and
so this would surely save parents money on clothes for their children. Referring to my previous
point, if children were allowed to wear their own clothes to school, a combination of peer
pressure and childrens need for the latest fashion would lead them to put pressure on their
parents to buy them extra new clothes to wear to school. If everyone is wearing a uniform, this
problem is removed. Crimes involving the stealing of clothes are also eliminated, as everyone
would be wearing the same.
Because students are more easily identifiable when wearing a uniform, intruders in the school
can be identified easily, therefore improving student safety in school. Student safety can also be
improved by the wearing of uniform while out on school trips, as children are more easily
accounted for.
The wearing of school uniform helps children to realize that their uniqueness and individuality
goes deeper than their clothes, and are not lessened by a uniform.
AGAINST (Anti.)
I believe wearing a school uniform is a breach of childrens right to individuality and selfexpression. Everyone is unique, and so making children wear a school uniform takes away their
individuality and personality. Maybe this discourages them from performing to their full
potential, and excelling in their favored subjects?
Uniforms were thought up by head teachers as a way of trying to control children. They may give
children the impression that conformity is a good way of avoiding conflict, and this is not a good
message to teach to children.
I think most school uniforms are ugly and unflattering, and having to wear something that is not
comfortable to a child is not good for their self-image. What happens if someone doesnt like the
color green? If children were allowed to wear their own clothes at least they would be
comfortable. In the case of younger children, if they got their only school jumper muddy, they
would have none to wear the next day, which would mean they got told off at school.
Uniforms make parents spend more money unnecessarily. They are expensive, and parents
already have to spend money on clothes for children to wear outside school. If children didnt
have to wear a uniform, parents would ultimately have more money.
People think that if children wore their own clothes, cliques and gangs would form according to
social class, or fashion groups. I think these gangs will still form even if everyone is wearing
uniform, just for less shallow reasons; children would be bullied for other things except their
clothes, maybe even encouraging racism? Because students are easily recognizable in school
uniform, this may also encourage bullying and rivalry between schools.
Questions
1. What is the issue of the reading above?
2. Fill in the arguments of the text above:
Arguments for Arguments against
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Reading 2:
In this stage you will deal with written text of discussion. Again observe: the content, the generic
structure, the social function and the language features of the text.
Gene Splicing
Genetic research has produced both exciting and frightening possibilities. Scientists are now able
to create new forms of life in the laboratory due to th e development of gene splicing.
On the other hand, the ability to create life in the laboratory could greatly benefit mankind. For
example, because it is very expensive to obtain insulin from natural sources, scientists have
developed a method to manufacture it inexpensively in the laboratory.
Another beneficial application of gene splicing is in an agriculture. Scientists foresee the day
when new plan will be developed using nitrogen from the air instead of from fertilizer. Therefore
food production could be increased. In addition, entirely new plants could be developed to feed
the worlds hungry people.
Not everyone is excited about gene splicing, however. Some people feel that it could have terrible
consequences. Laboratory accident, for example might cause an epidemic of an unknown disease
that could wipe out humanity.
As a result of this controversy, the government has made rules to control genetic experiment.
While some members of the scientific community feel that these rules are too strict, many other
people feel that they are not still strict enough.
Task 1: Answer the following questions.
1. What has the genetic research produced?
2. Why have the scientists developed new method?
3. Where can we find another benefit of gene splicing application?
4. What do the scientists do to develop new plants?
5. What is the conclusion of the issue above?
6. Find the words that you feel difficult and find them in a dictionary.
Task 2: Write the generic structure of the text on the spaces provided on the right side of the text.
Task 3: What is the communicative purpose of the writer writes the text above?
Task 4.
Rewrite the conjunction that shows contrast on the spaces below.
Reading 3:
Do We Still Need Zoos?
Zoos were originally set up so that people could see and learn about wild animals from distant
lands. As more people become city-dwellers, never seeing animals in the wild, zoos began to
house local creatures too. However, in todays world, are zoos really necessary?
Since people can now see any sort of wild animals in its natural habitat, simply by tuning it to a
TV program or buying a video, some animal right activists claim the zoos are out of date. They
argue that it is cruel to capture animals, transport them long distances, and then keep them caged
up, simply for the entertainment of the human beings. Captive animals often develop zoochosisabnormal behavior like rocking or swaying-which indicates that they are bored and unhappy in
their prison-like conditions.
On the other hand, there is a huge difference between watching an animal on screen and seeing it
in real life. It could be argued that visiting zoo is educational, often increasing peoples concern
for wildlife and conservation, which is of great importance in todays developing and
overdeveloped-world. Indeed, sometimes the only way to save an endangered species may be to
arrange for it to breed in captivity. Behind the scene, zoos also provide scientists with
opportunities to research into animal behavior: modern zoos can also be better planned than oldfashioned ones, proving animals with carefully designed enclosures appropriate to their needs.
It seems, then, that there are still arguments for retaining zoos. These should; however, be
carefully planned with animals welfare in mind: in the modern worlds, there is no excuse for
keeping the animals in cramped or cruel conditions.
16. 1. The passage above is an example of
a. hortatory exposition c. explanation e. review
b. discussion d. description
2. What is the writers main purpose in writing this passage?
a. to show that zoos are no longer needed nowadays
b. to show how important the zoos are
c. to show that there are two different points of view about whether or not zoos are still needed
nowadays
d. to entertain readers with the zoos
e. to explain the advantages of the zoos nowadays
18. 3. According to some animal right activists zoos are no longer necessary because
a. Nowadays to see wild animals are not as difficult as before.
b. There is increase in the number of animals which die in the zoo.
c. Animals in the zoos are no longer interesting to see.
d. There is no adequate food for the animals living in the zoos.
e. Watching animals in the zoos can increase peoples concern for wild life.
4.They argue that it is cruel to capture animals, transport them long distances, (par.2). The
underlined word has the same meaning as
a. kill b. keep c. trap d. shoot e. catch
5. How do we know that animals living caged up start to get bored?
a. Some of them died of hunger. d. Some of them cannot breed well.
b. Some of them behave normally. e. Some of them get thinner and thinner
c. Some of them spend the time sleeping too much.
Reading 4:
Death penalty for serious criminal has been discussed by our experts. Those who agree say that
death penalty will scare the criminals off. However , those who disagree say that is inhuman, not
effective and we cannot correct the wrong sentence after the criminals die. In Switzerland, this
penalty doesnt exist. Most people argue that possibility of making the wrong decision is always
there although it is true that spending life behind the bars is not easy either. Also, every person
should have a chance for rehabilitation. In this way he or she can start all over again in another
life style.
Those who agree argue that there is no use to feed the terrorists in prison with their money.
When they get out, they will create a lot of trouble by blackmailing and killing people. So, who
says that jails will stop them from being bad guys?
My own opinion is divided. On the one hand, I want to be humane, and go on the other hand, I
wonder if those people are worthy of my feeling.

1. This text mainly discusses ...
a. The death penalty controversy d. The punishment in our country
b. The death penalty in Switzerland e. Those who support death penalty
c. Those who are against death penalty
2. Which of the following is not the reason for those who are against death penalty?
a. Death penalty is inhuman
b. Death penalty is not effective
c. There possibility of misjudgment
d. It is harder to live behind bars than to die.
e. Every person should have chance for rehabilitation.
3. What is the writers opinion about death penalty?
a. He is not able to decide.
b. He is against with death penalty.
c. He agrees with death penalty.
d. Death penalty is worthwhile punishment.
e. The criminals deserve to receive the benefit of human feeling.
4. However those who agree say that it is inhuman, not effective and we cannot correct the
wrong sentence after the criminal die. (par. 1). The underlined word can be replaced by ...
a. Fine b. Though c. Command d. Statement d. Punishment
Reading 5:
Money is not the most important thing in life. Some people think that with much money you can
live happily. With money you can buy food you eat. You can buy clothes you wear. You can send
your children to the best schools or universities. With money you can do a lot of things you wish.
By having much money you can both enjoy your life and prepare your children for their bright
future.
When you lose your money you feel very sad. Certainly, you are so unhappy when you want to
buy something but your money is not enough. That most people work is just for earning a living
or some money. Without money, you have many difficulties. You cannot lead your normal life
appropriately. So money is the most important thing in your life.
Many other people disagree with such a way of thinking. It is quite true that with your money you
can buy food and clothes you need. With money you can pay for the good education. It is not the
most important thing, however. We often notice that having a lot of money brings about the
sufferings.
Many rich people are shot dead by the robbers when they bring their money home from the bank.
Some rich people who have got their money by corruption are at last sent to the jail. They spend
their life in the prison. They cannot enjoy the freedom. Many of their friends blame, hate and
leave them. They become the bad topic in their circles.
Now it comes to conclusion that money is necessary but not the most important thing in human
life.
1. The following word is not similar in meaning to the underlined word notice (par.4).
a. see b. perceive c. observe e. arrange e.detect
2. The issue discussed is ...
a. Money is useful for human life.
b. Money is more important than happiness.
c. Money is number one in human life.
d. Money is a tool for achieving the happy life.
e. Money is not the most important in life.
3. Why do many people think that money can bring about suffering to people?
a. Many people die because of money.
b. Many corruptors enjoy the money they corrupt.
c. Many corruptors go to the jail and they enjoy their life.
d. Many rich people enjoy the results of the corruption.
e. Many rich people need to hate the poor people.

4. In which paragraph does the text state contra the issue?
a. paragraph 1 d. paragraph 2
b. paragraph 3 e. paragraph 4
c. paragraph 5
Argumentative Essay CORRUPTOR SHOULD BE GIVEN

DEATH SENTENCE
Corruptors are the parasite for the development of our country. The benefits are
great for the people of Indonesia when there is not corruption anymore. A
prosperous Indonesia is not a dream. There are so many corruptor cases in Indonesia, thus
corruptors should be given death sentence. There are three argument the corruptor should get
death sentence that are to scare the people to do corruption, to decrease the number of
corruption in Indonesia, and to increase the pride of Indonesia to the worlds perspective.
Death sentence can scare the people to do corruption. The punishment that given to
corruptor is really weak. The legal basis for criminal (civil) corruption is Law No. 31 of 1999
on Combating Corruption, which is then updated with the Act No. 20 of 2001. In the
Act, set how many prison sentences and fines of minimum and maximum for those found
guilty of corruption. The penalties range from 1 year up to a maximum of 20 years in
prison, and rely on the
parties
to
a criminal
act
of
corruption (whether the
person who bribed or bought off). But there is repetition and ambiguity in some chapters.
Giving death sentence can decrease the number of corruption in Indonesia. Because
death sentence is scaring people to do corruption, it can minimize the number of corruption
case in our country. Nur Wahid said, the death penalty is applied in order to create a deterrent
effect for criminals, as well as potential criminals. "It will give confidence to people that in
our state laws can be enforced and there is protection for the people," he said. The
execution, the former PKS president, should be done firmly and quickly. He believes the
application
of the
death
penalty will not leadto international protests. "Malaysia andSingapore can apply, why Indone
sia did
not," he
said. The
nation,
he
said, requires
a
firm choice and the
courage to establish the death penalty for corrupt.
Death sentence can increase prosperity and the pride of Indonesia to the worlds
perspective. If our country is free from corruption, automatically our country will get more
prosperity and we will not feel embarrassed to our corruption rank.
Metrotvnews.com, Padang: Vice Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission
(KPK) M Jasin revealed, according to survey results of Political and Economic Risk
Consultancy (PERC) 2010 Indonesia are the most corrupt country in Asia Pacific.
PERC survey results (9.27) was put Indonesia in the first rank as the most corrupt country of
the 16-nation Asia-Pacific is
the purpose of
investment, M Jasin said in Padang
Thursday (11/8).
In conclusion, our government should firmly apply the death sentence for the corruptor
because there are provident that death sentence can give scary effect to the people who want
to do corruption and can decrease the number of corruption case that can increase prosperity
so we do not feel embarrassed again for our world corruption rank.
http://kumpulantugaskita.blogspot.com/2012/04/argumentative-essay-corruptorshould-be.html
Seven Years for Gayus : Discussion Text

Posted: February 5, 2011 in Learn English
34
Seven Years for Gayus
Thesis :
Parliament disappointed by the decision of the judges of South Jakarta District
Court sentenced the accused mafia Halomoan Tambunan Gaius tax for seven
years in prison and a fine of Rp300 million. This ruling is far lower than the
demands of prosecutors who want Gaius was sentenced for 20 years in prison plus
a fine of Rp500 million. DPR suspect, there is intervention from outside parties
that influence the decision of the court.

Photo by : Sgp from www.hukumonline.com
Student Discussion
Instructions: Write your points of view about these issue. Your opinions must be
written in this following out line.
Pro Arguments :
Argument 1 :
Argument 2 :
Argument 3 :
Contra Arguments :
Argument 1 :
Argument 2 :
Argument 3 :
Your Point of View ( conclusion ) :
we are waiting your comments sooner. so, submit your comments before February
10th.
Thanks
Mr.Dik
About these ads
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Comments
1.
B. Ratna says:
February 22, 2011 at 4:59 am
Firstly,
My egoistic opinion: I hate this 3 > There three reasons why we can tell that the Courts decision fit with our
left brain.
- First, its better than if Gayus didnt get any sentence at all. What a
nonsense I said? Of course with his connection, he can easily avoid his
punishment buy running from Indonesia.
- Second, only to put Gayus on that lower sentence many people have
passed trough so many problems and did many efforts. So did we want to
make other people tired for nothing?
- Third, may be this is the only chance left to arrest Gayus. Why? Just go
back to the first reason to get the answer.
> After reread our thesis above did our right brain protest?
- The very first; It is not fair at all. Open your childish mind; even with it
you can transparently see that the Courts decision isnt fair. As you know;
what happen with the one who stole a hen, they got hundred hits, killed and
burned. Why Gayus didnt get it?
- OK, he is blue collar criminal, this rank of criminal hard to arrest. So, can
we break that conclusion? Gayus is a corruptor, slow-killer but crueler if we
compared with a true psychopath. What he did trouble many people, all
people in Indonesia, so this is my second opinion why I didnt agree with
Courts decision.
- Third, if corruptor like him can escape (lowering) his punishment, how
about the other, bigger, dirtier corruptor? Can we just let them run from
what they should deserve just like Gayus?
> So if the Law and Justice still cannot be maintained, so whatever is
Courts decision, we can only accept it. Since this is how Justice in
Indonesia. But still, what Gayus deserve is not fair.
Reply
2.
Anisa Tri Wahyuni says:
February 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm

However, the last statement is i prefer fir him to get death sentence.
Reply
3.

But however, there is a strong reason also why Gayus should get a hard
punishment:
i copied from http://www.vhrmedia.com/Gayus-Harus-Dihukum-Berat-danDimiskinkan-berita6537.html
theres a statement there that he should get a long live i prison and must be
poor because he take a role to make society in Indonesia poor. One of the
idea is to make the coorruptor poor, because the corrptor will think twice
before corruption if all of his or her property took by the nation.
Reply
4.

Well, maybe this is the answer why Gayus should be sentenced only 7 years
in the prison. As what i ve read in : http://www.harianberita.com/alasangayus-dihukum-ringan.html
as a first it can be asked why a Person like Gayus should get only 7 years in
Prison, it seems not fair from what he has done, corupting too much money
from the tax that has been paid by society? As Albertino Ho said that he has
take the decision from many sides, both in the necessary of society, nation
and of course the suspect. But those all not enough by just seeing the impact
of what the suspect has done to the society, but also the role of suspect in
this case.
According to him, Gayus is not the only one who take the responsbility of
his false in controling of heavy tax in PT Surya Alam Tunggal (PT SAT) in
tax department. He added, that his boss should take a correction
continuously to accpet a heavy tax of PT SAT. Also, the deceit inspection of
where the Rp 28 billion come, that ended by Free Sentenced in Tangerang
Court.
Added, the case become all responsbility with another suspect that has
relation of the existention assumed of Corrupting Rp 28 Billionin Gayus
recening. Albertina said that he can not be sentenced because he out of
assumption and has not been proved in the court. Another reason why he get
light punishment, because he assumed to give a honest explanation in
certain matters so it can make the session run smoothly. On the other hand,
Gayus never get a sentence, and he has a children that still need love and
attention. He still young enough and hoped to make his behaviour better in
the futture.
Reply
5.
sunanto says:
contra:
I do not agree with the statement from the judge, because:
1. the punishment is too mild, considering that Gayus has cost the state
billions and even trillions of rupiah.
so do not sebnding with what he did.
2. lots of chicken thief who is in the village who are judged by society and
the law in prison for 5 years, when he was only stealing chickens and even
then caught again even judged by the public. different cases of corruption
suspects who can be free without getting punished for his mistakes.
3. there is a grandmother who took the cacao fruit that fell on the ground to
deal with the owner to court. when grandma was just taking a fruit that has
fallen, but to deal with any court.
Where justice so that adadi this country? chicken thieves and cocoa makers
who have fallen on trial but, a lot of corruption suspects who are still freely
breath of fresh air without ever care about what is being experienced by
people in the bottom of this small people.
conclusion:
I think the punishment given to Gaius still less suitable view what he was
doing, even if you can all the people who get involved in it in the law
severely. and if you can let the death penalty. let all people can think back to
engage in corruption.
maybe just this that I can convey.
sorry sir iam late
thank:-)
Reply
6.
sunsnto says:
contra:
I do not agree with the statement from the judge, because:
1. the punishment is too mild, considering that Gayus has cost the state
billions and even trillions of rupiah.
so do not sebnding with what he did.
2. lots of chicken thief who is in the village who are judged by society and
the law in prison for 5 years, when he was only stealing chickens and even
then caught again even judged by the public. different cases of corruption
suspects who can be free without getting punished for his mistakes.
3. there is a grandmother who took the cacao fruit that fell on the ground to
deal with the owner to court. when grandma was just taking a fruit that has
fallen, but to deal with any court.
Where justice so that adadi this country? chicken thieves and cocoa makers
who have fallen on trial but, a lot of corruption suspects who are still freely
breath of fresh air without ever care about what is being experienced by
people in the bottom of this small people.
conclusion:
I think the punishment given to Gaius still less suitable view what he was
doing, even if you can all the people who get involved in it in the law
severely. and if you can let the death penalty. let all people can think back to
engage in corruption.
maybe just this that I can convey.
Reply
7.
Riesca Martdiyanti says:

Im really sorry, sir..
because im late to submit.. because network in my residence is not to good..
contra
Argument 1: Gayus has been unfairly persecuted because of indirect and
steal the rights of the people of Indonesia.
Argument 2: Gayus is the biggest villain in Indonesia and should be justly
punished.
Argument 3: I would like Gayus get the death penalty or life in prison.
I do not agree with mild punishment for Gayus and i wish no more next
Gayus.
I hopefully eradicate corruption in Indonesia went well and the corruptors
given a sentence that fairly as possible.
thank you, sir
and forgive me, sir..
Reply
8.
Riesca Martdiyanti says:

im really sorry, sir..
because im late to submit.. because network in my residence is not to good..
contra
Argument 1: Gayus has been unfairly persecuted because of indirect and
steal the rights of the people of Indonesia.
Argument 2: Gayus is the biggest villain in Indonesia and should be justly
punished.
Argument 3: I would like Gayus get the death penalty or life in prison.
I do not agree with mild punishment for Gayus and there is no next Gayus.
I hopefully eradicate corruption in Indonesia went well and the corruptors
given a sentence that fairly as possible.
thank you, sir
and forgive me, sir..
Reply
9.
Shinta Ayu P.P.D says:

well, if i could say, its better for him to disappear to other country or die
soon.
world will not give a thing for a low-life form like Gayus.
i meant, he is just one of billions human in this world, and a death is an
usual thing happens everyday.
his death will not change anything, but may changes human point of view of
justice.
beside, in his afterlife, he will experience what the true justice is.
so, dont blabbering about human justice,
no need to change the world or other people.
just CHANGE YOUR SELF!
(in other words, i am a contra. i wish him to die)
Reply
10.
puput nurovy says:

Assalamualaikum
Of course there is intervention from outside parties that influence the
decision of the courth.. there is so many others big mafia.. not just gayus.
And these is my opinion . .
1. My father always turn the tv in to metro or tv one chanel. He like to watch
a kind of news which told us about big trouble case or a famous cases. I
wathing gayus for all of what he did. He must got bigger punishment.. not
just 7 or 20, cause it was unfair.. he cheat more than a milliard, but why he
just got punish 7 years pinalty and a fine 300 million. It was so bad. Once
again, it must be there something hide behind it!!
2. KPK must being check corectly. KPK is one organizm which handle a
corruption problem in indonesia. So, we must filter the member of KPK
diligently. cause how can kpk do his job to broke corruption in indonesia if
his member was join on that problem too
3. INDONESIA MUST TIGHTED HIS LAW !!??@@##
who LEAD an organizm which a big organizm or small please.. leave ur job
if you cant do ur job well. Please do your job wisely and do as good as
possible you can. Dont be a week guy. The time you week it is the time they
strong.. just like when gayus travel to macau, bali, etc, hed it because it was
the time we are week.
Conclution:
Judge the gayus holomon tambunan with honestly. And remember, there is
so many other mafia who still free..
Actually, i have an argumen on pro side. But it too much long.
So.. thanks for reading. Sorry if there is a mistaken word
Wassalam..
Reply
11.
Zanne Sandriati Putri says:

Contra:
1. Gayus has taken countrys money for his self and it inflicted a loss upon
many Indonesian people.
2. The ruling is not fair. The thief who steals trivial thing gets heavy ruling
but Gayus who steals much money just gets relief from the ruling.
3. The intervention from outside parties that influence the decision of the
court proves that justice in Indonesia has not been followed well.
Remember, in this era money can do everything and Gayus has it.
My conclusion:
I dont agree with the decision of the judges of South Jakarta District Court
and Gayus has to get heavier ruling.
Reply
12.
Okky Paulin says:
1. I agree with the parliament. Gaius is a corruptr heavyweight, but the

punishment which the court granted it is lighter than the sentences handed
down to the poor people who steal. The law in Indonesia is not able to
provide justice.
2. Maybe now the truth can be bought with money. How can a criminal like
Gaius who should locked up even to go abroad on holiday even if there is no
cooperation between the court and the suspects. Fine of 500 million is
nothing compared to billions of public money which he seized and spend.
3. If punishment in Indonesia be negotiable, the corrupt and criminals can
grow quite large. They would think that a crime has been a bit safer from the
threat of punishment, because judges can be invited to compromise. It was
heartbreaking!
So, the penalty of 7 years imprisonment and a fine of 300 million is a good
news for Gaius and bad news for the mental development of generation.
Reply
13.
Riya Rosanti says:

CONTRA
ARGUMENT :
1. I think the courts decision to Gaius is not comparable to what has been
done by Gaius to the nation of Indonesia.
2. Gaius should be punished severely, because his actions are very
detrimental to the nation of Indonesia. Penalty of 7 years and a fine of 300
million will not guarantee the mafia like Gaius disappeared.
It would be nice if all of proceeds of corruption were confiscated and
returned to the country for the interests of the people.
3. Law in Indonesia should be more assertive again. And the law should not
be traded.
CONCLUSION:
Gaius should be punished severely, because it has been detrimental to the

Indonesian people and the law in Indonesia should be more emphasized.
Reply
14.
Aisyatun Nur Laely says:

1. In my opinion, the chastisement is inconsistent what must he do. Its not
equitable. He must get in a proportion chastisement.
2. Im agree with DPRs assumption if any fiddle in this case. Its proven
with the chastisement for him from 20 years and 500 milions until 7 years
and 300 milions.
3. Coruption is the one of harmful crime many people and must get in
proportion chastiment with Indonesians rule of law, dont get to
indonesians culture.
thanks
Reply
15.
Rini Purnamasari says:

contra, me as student here because that some reason :
1. Punishment for Gayus Tambunan is not comparable with his action in
corruption tax.
2. Seven years in prison and a fine of Rp300 million, i think its very not fair
decision. oh my god. why is the law in Indonesia can be arranged with the
money? This is very embarrassing and pity.
3. Poor people who do not have the money are willing to pay taxes as a
liability, they tried to pay it all. the mafia tax should be ashamed of that all.
Tax money that should be for the welfare of the people and development are
used to corruption. one person acting but up thousands of people suffer
because that.
^^ conclusion
Remember all the deeds will get penalty, not only the world but also her
afterlife. Law in Indonesia should straighten and be fair. We as a successor
to the nation must be honest and not cheating on all deeds.
Gayus should be grateful for the gift of the gods in the form of intelligence,
but he could not keep and use it. so for all those who were given gift of
intelligence should not use it properly to be wasted.
^^ Thanks..
hopefully useful..
Reply
16.
Rini Purnamasari says:

contra, me as student here because that some reason :
1. Punishment for Gayus Tambunan is not comparable with his action in
corruption tax.
2. Seven years in prison and a fine of Rp300 million, i think its very not fair
decision. oh my god. why is the law in Indonesia can be arranged with the
money? it is This is very embarrassing and pity.
3. Poor people who do not have the money are willing to pay taxes as a
liability, they tried to pay it all. the mafia tax should be ashamed of that all.
Tax money that should be for the welfare of the people and development are
used to corruption. one person acting but up thousands of people suffer
because that.
^^ conclusion
Remember all the deeds will get penalty, not only the world but also her
afterlife. Law in Indonesia should straighten and be fair. We as a successor
to the nation must be honest and not cheating on all deeds.
Gayus should be grateful for the gift of the gods in the form of intelligence,
but he could not keep and use it. so for all those who were given gift of
intelligence should not use it properly to be wasted.
^^ Thanks..
hopefully useful..
Reply
17.
ika ristiani says:

1.Seriously, Gayus should be ashamed to his children for corruption and
being jailed. Im pretty sure if his kids were older, they would be very very
ashamed to have such father.
2.Gayus problem is very complicated, because there are many mafia behind
Gayus who protect and fund Gayus.
3.No wonder again if the disciplinary action taken against Gayus judges are
lenient because some cases in Indonesia, easily bought with money.
but at least with Gayus problem is some other corruption cases and some
previously unknown mafia to be revealed.
unresolved cases of tax mafia Gayus, president of the Republic of Indonesia
SBY requested salary increase. I think Indonesia still needs a lot of smart
people who act commendable. so for the younger generation, from now on,
let us realize the ideals of Indonesia become a country free of corruption
starts from small things.
Reply
18.
Rakhmawati Nabila says:

Contra.
1. I think its very unfair because the amount of fines imposed to Gayus is
not comparable with bribes that have been received by him from the big
corporations.
2. In my opinion, 7 years and fine of 300 million can not make the
corruption especially Gayus deterrent. Supposedly, punishment and fines
that received by Gayus greater because Gayus received bribes are greater
than the fines were given and the existence of violations that have been
Gayus did during the trial process.
3. Tax money should be used to perform the construction of public facilities,
are used by Gayus for the interests and personal gain. The act of Gayus is
very detrimental to the people of Indonesia and make people not believe in
the government sector, particularly in taxation.
The Case of Gayus not to give the view that the law in Indonesia is weak
and subject to money.
Thats my opinion about the case of Gayus which seems very difficult to
solve. I hope that Gayus gets rewarded appropriately.
Thanks
Reply
19.
Zanne Sandriati Putri says:

Contra:
Argument 1: gayus has taken countrys money for his self and it inflictes a
loss upon many Indonesian people.
Argument 2: The ruling is not fair. The thief who steals trivial thing gets
heavy ruling but gayus who steals much money just gets relief from ruling.
Argument 3: The intervention from outside parties that influence the
decision of the court proves that justice in Indonesia has not been followed
well. Remember, money can do everything and gayus has it.
My conclusion:
I dont agree with the decision of the judges of South Jakarta District Court
and gayus has to get heavier ruling.
Reply
20.
Melania RJ says:
contra
o argument:
1. I think the penalty of seven years plus a fine of three million was too mild
if compared with what has been done Gayus. that has harmed Indonesia
billions of dollars.
2. Gayus penalty should be added because he had broken the rules that go
outside the country while a prisoner.
3. Indonesian law should be corrected not to be bought with money.
o conclusion
Gaius should be punished more than 20 years and 500 million. so he will
never do again corruption. Indonesian law also should be corrected. why the
chicken thief sentenced to 20 years, whereas only 7 years for Gayus. of
course its really not fair. and prove if Indonesian law can still be bought
with money.
thanks
Reply
21.
Lona Puspa Amelia says:

Pro argument:
1. I agree with these issue. I think corruption is one of serious transgression
so the defendant must be punished hard, but in this case gayus just tax for 7
years in prison and a fine of 300 milion. Its not proportional with his
badness.
2. In reality, still, law in Indonesia can be bought, and thats not difficult for
gayus to do it because he has a lot of money, so presumption of DPR about
this case is totally right.
3. Corruption indirectly can killing societys life, and for perpetrators should
get death punishment. Therefore, I agree with parliament dissapointed.
Reply
22.
Yurike Eliawati says:
Contra
This is not fair..
1. He has made a big mistake in Indonesia with his status as a corruptor.
2. He should be jailed for more than 7 years, because of corruption cases
that have been detrimental to Indonesia .. If I am given the opportunity to
decide the punishment for him, I want to punish him more than 20 years,
with fines of more than 500 million.
3. I believe the law in Indonesia would be fair. and the decision will give the
best for Indonesia.
And i hope that Gaius and can be severely punished ..
Thanks..
Reply
obama says:
September 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm
wkwkwkwkwkkoboi cengeng
Reply
23.
Firmansyah Putra says:

I do not agree with the judges decision
Gaius had stolen state money over 10 billion dollars. he has made many
people miserable, too many people steal money. 7 years in prison, not a
suitable decision
during imprisonment, he did stupid things, he got out jail for a trip to Bali,
Macau without legal permission from the police. he bribed prison officials
he also often absent from the hearing that he should go. very dispointing. so,
if he was only sentenced to 7 years in prison and 300 million, was
inappropriate
i dont agree with judges
Reply
24.

I do not agree with the judges decision
Gaius had stolen state money over 10 billion dollars. he has made many
people miserable, too many people steal money. 7 years in prison, not a
suitable decision
during imprisonment, he did stupid things, he got out jail for a trip to Bali,
Macau without legal permission from the police. he bribed prison officials
he also often absent from the hearing that he should go. very dispointing. so,
if he was only sentenced to 7 years in prison and 300 million, was
inappropriate
thx
Reply
25.
Eko Purnomo says:

CONTRA :
I disagree with the judges decision to Gayus punishment, because
punishment is not proportional to the corruption he had done.
My reasons are:
- The amount of corruption that he very much and harm the countrys
economy.
- For example, chicken thieves (petty theft) punishable with a sentence
similar to Gayus (class thief snapper).
- Not only the corruption that he is doing, but also cases of bribery, etc.
- The death penalty seems appropriate for the corrupt in this country (so they
deterrent).
Conclusion: I really disagree with the punishment.
Clean Indonesia from the corruptor, briber and other injustices. Enforce
justice and righteousness in Indonesia.
Thanks.
Reply
26.
Oki Rizki M says:

Contra
1. I think the punishment for Gayus is not enough, there must be Insiders
doing, so Gayus punishment is too light
2. law in Indonesia have been less effective
3. all money he gain from corruption must be returned
I agree if Gayus sentenced 20 years in prison plus a fine of Rp 500 million
and all corruption money returned. If necessary given the death penalty, so
all corruptors scared and stop doing corruption. In these days law and justice
is ignored. Only poor people who care about law and justice.
Reply

Dari:
Bahasa Indonesia
Ke:
Inggris
Merjemahkan teks atau laman web
saya tidak setuju dengan keputusan hakim gayus telah mencuri uang
negara lebih dari 10 miliyar rupiah. dia sudah membuat banyak orang
tersiksa, terlalu banyak mencuri uang rakyat. 7 tahun dipenjara,
bukan keputusan yang cocok selama di penjara
Ketikkan teks atau alamat situs web atau terjemahkan dokumen.
Batal
Simak
Baca secara fonetik
Terjemahan Bahasa Indonesia ke Inggris
i relly disagree
Reply
27.
A Samudra says:

im against the decision of the court judges for Gayuss case
1. From social point of view, now people in Indonesia getting more
convinced that law is for sale, starting from Atalita Suryanis hotel roomalike cell and now Gayuss case. People would not trust the law-system
anymore, and it could create an disrepcet before the law.
2. It seems that those corruptors have no nationalism at all, they could betray
Indonesia easily, and that deserve more than 7 years and 300 million.
3. Gayuss sentence should be an example for other corruptor that they could
be caught sometimes, and this example will be more effective if the sentece
of corruption is severe, so there would be no more corruptor dare to playing
the law in our lovely country.
So, my conclution is that Gayus case should be an example if it handled
right, because 7 years and 300 million is not worth what they did to our
countries and it will make people disrespect law system in Indonesia
Reply
28.
REKA GUSTAMALA says:
Contra
I do not agree if Gaius only lightly punished with imprisonment of 7 years
and a fine of Rp 300 million
arguments
1. Gaius has hurt the country with embezzling state funds (corruption).
2. he has a lot of bribing members of the law in Indonesia.
3. he had bought the law in Indonesia, he just casually walk out of the
country while going through a period of punishment.
conclusion
Gaius should be punished more heavily again like a lifetime, or even the
death penalty. but, we also do not punish Gaius alone, because he can not
work alone in the embezzlement of state money must he assisted other
officers. Indonesian police have finished investigating more deeply about
the mafia law.
Fight corruption, corruption-free Indonesia!
thanks
Reply
29.
waenah alfiana says:

pro
i thing there is intervention from outside parties that influence the decision
of the court.
argument
1. Halomoan mafia Gayus Tambunan should be punished more than 7 years
in prison and a fine of 300 million
2. Gaius had been bribed many law enforcement officers to release him from
punishment, so this is also an easy matter for Gaius to bribe south Jakarta
district court judge to lighten his sentence
3. law in Indonesia can be very easily purchased, so i agree if there is
intervention
Reply
30.
Eko Purnomo says:

My pro comment :
Yea.. I enough agree with this punishment.
My Arguments are :
- Because Gaius like only used as guinea pigs for perpetrators of corrupt
that behind him.
- The authorities should resolve this problem as quickly as possible. In order
not to cause new problems.
- Do not just Gaius are punished, get the criminals is behind Gaius.
My contra arguments :
I really really dont agree with this punishment, the corruptor that had
corrupted much of money and make Indonesian people loss just punished
with 7 years and 300 millions. But, The stealer of chicken (for example)
punished with similar punishment. This is dilapidation law in Indonesia.
I think appropriate punishment for criminals, among others:
- Fines money 10 times the number that was corrupted (for deterrent effect
triggered corruptor.)
- Punishment cut the hands.
- The death penalty
Thanks sir.
Reply
31.

this is my agree (pro) comment
I agree if the judge decides Gaius jailed 7 years.
because it is actually not only hayus who enjoy the money, and Gaius only
become protectors of the other corrupt .. is the amount of money he yand
selundupkan not the least, but the others as well as more corrupt
thx
Reply
32.

I do not agree with the judges decision, such person shall be punished with
Gaius semaksimalnya moreover, when he was in prison, he returned to
have committed crimes with the streets without official permission .. very
embarrassing
http://niceenglish.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/seven-years-for-gayus-discussiontext/
1st speaker
Honorable adjudicators and happy audience.
Happy audience ladies and gentlemen.
Definition:
Team line:
Corruption means the abuse of legal power by
Our time line is the corruptor has human right to live and
government official for immoral private gain. It is well-
government can use jail sentence.
known done with tendency towards the benefits for

individual or group interest. Corruption is prominently
forbidden not only by law but also religion in Indonesia.
That teaches us about bad impact of doing negative
things, like getting heavy punishment in the hereafter.
Team line:
Team split:
The first speaker speak about the human right for the
corruptor to live, the second speaker talk about the chance
for corruptor to back go the right way, and the third
speaker speak about the worst effect caused by death
penalty.
Our time line is corruption causes mass destruction for

peoples misery and it should be stopped by death
penalty to prevent other corruption.
Team split:
Arguments:
I disagree with the motion because there are some reasons
why I disagree about it! It can be regarded from various
kind of field.
The first speaker will deal with corruption regarded from
law, the second speaker speak about afford to prevent
1. Regarded from human right.
corruption by death penalty, and the third speaker talk

about exclusive law and court for the corruptor.
2. Regarded from psychology of corruptor

family.
Arguments:
Ladies and gentlemen.
Here as the first speaker I will speak about human right. I
Here I agree with the motion stating that the corruptors
think we all know what human right is. Human right is
must get death penalty. There are some reasons why I
right that adhere in everyones self since inside of womb
can say this. Those can be looked upon some point of
thats have a supreme and fundamental as the gift of God
views:
for long life and it cant be claimed by whoever and it must

be respected, be kept and must be protected by whoever
1. Regarded from law.

Here I would like to give some reasons regarding law
constitution.
social or state. From the statement above it is really

obvious that everybody, everyone has a human right
especially life right including for the corruptor. Corruptor
is also an ordinary human. Like me, like you, and like us.
So, corruptor has human right to life as well, why
corruptor should get a death penalty ladies and gentlemen?
Based on constitution 1999 no. 31 article 2 stating that

death penalty can be executed in a certain condition and
it is really a must to be done including fining death
penalty upon the corruptor.
If the death penalty really be executed it will give a
shock therapy for the corruptor because all of corruptors
will be afraid to do corruption again. Then the candidate
of new corruptor will think twice or maybe 3 times, 4
times, 5 times up to hundreds time to do corruption
Based on constitution of 1945 article 28 a about life right.

It is really obvious that it is contain about human right.
So, relating to this if the death penalty really be done.
Wont it break human right? Where is the real of our
government to protect the society if the death penalty
really be done?
because if they will perpetrate corruption they will get
We recognize that Indonesia is even the house of
death penalty.
corruptors. Many corruptors in Indonesia started by the

When we are watching television, reading newspaper or
listen to radio, corruptor is mainly discussed as the
hottest issue. This case are found everywhere, either in
countryside or big cities the corruptor can be whoever
having a chance to do it.
most little levels up to highest levels. But, I think to give

penalty our government must not use a death penalty.
Actually, the corruptors are mostly smart person and have
an outstanding education.
But, because of their intelligence is not be balanced by
strong religion lesson. So that, finally they are taken to do
It can occur at all levels of our society, such as from
a corruption.
local and national government. Those are like the leader

of village, representative of citizen and up to the highest
And if all of them get a death penalty what will happen to
level.
our country? Perhaps, citizen or resident in Indonesia is

only a stupid person as the rest?
If the bad condition is not done soon by firm sanction,

what will happen with the country in the future ladies
If we wait the next generation it is not sure will be better
and gentlemen?
than the corruptor right now.
Here the firmest sanction for the corruptor they must get
death penalty. If the corruptor gets only a sentence in

prison, they can still feel the freedom. For example: one
of the corruptor in our country has got a sentence in
prison but he can still go anywhere, even in jail he got
luxurious facilities, like air conditioner, LCD player, and
even they can go out of the prison.
Now, lets see the reality! We all know that manycorruptors

in Indonesia who has known or have not yet. Maybe the
corruptor in Indonesia has reached 50% of official in our
country and all of them get a case of corruption.
Please you imagine; if all of them get a death penalty. How
Please you imagine what you feel? How about your

feeling watching the reality that make us annoyed about
it? Do you will the people who has made our society
misery, they get penalty that can be called VIP
punishment.
about their family fate? Perhaps they will be misery or

maybe their family will be poor because they do not have a
spinal column to fulfill their needs. Will it increase the
level of poverty in our country? They will cry all night
long who will take responsibilities to them? Our
government? I think it is not possible right?
Relating to this, it is better to give death penalty for the

corruptor rather than sentence in jail for some years or
long life.
Like what I say in my previous statement that actually the

corruptor mostly a smart people. If death penalty really be
done it will reduce the intelligence our government.
Please well imagine with your logical thought, if the

corruptor get only sentence in jail or maybe long life,
does it make our country lose, and it does not give
advantage for us and our country?
So, relating to this I think a death penalty is not really

important. Instead of giving death penalty it is better if our
government improve things for development our country.
And instead of their behavior maybe, perhaps our
government can give the corruptors a penalty as heavy as
Why I can say that ladies and gentlemen?
the lost that is caused of them.

For example: if the corruptor is just in jail it of course
our government will give meals for them. They do not
give
our
government
advantage
but
make
our
And it is not necessary get a death penalty.
government lose.
So, here we are as the opposition we disagree with the

motion. Thanks

As we all know that our country and government has
afforded to eliminate corruptor in our country, like
government has formed a board such as Commission of
Corruption Eradication (KPK), even in all constitution
had been contented about banning to perpetrate
corruption. But what had happened in our surroundings?
There are still many corruptors. They did not feel afraid
of it.
If our government just relax and give penalty in jail for
the corruptor how about our country in the future and for
the next generation?
There will be corruptors everywhere, in the villages up
to the big citiesladies and gentlemen.
To avoid the worst thing that will happen, our
government must give a firm penalty that is death
penalty for the corruptor.
So, we stand in this motion that corruptor must get death
penalty.
2nd speaker
Rebuttal:
Rebuttal:
Well, ladies and gentlemen. Here I am as the second
Ladies and gentlemen happy audience.
speaker from government, I would like to rebut some

arguments from the opposition.
Here is my rebuttal. Based on the arguments given by

government, it does not have any correlation between the
Considering the statements from opposition stating that
death sentences with the fear of perpetrating corruption.
corruptor should not get death penalty because of human
Again, we said it does not have any correlation at all. We
right issue. They said that the corruptor has right to life
should focus on the people who accused as the corruptors
without anyone insulting the basic right that they have.
and they get death penalty.That is the point of this debate
Is that true?
actually. It seems the government does not really

understand with the motion.
Those are not the reason on how to make deal with the
corruptor. They totally make a mass destruction in our
Arguments:
life. Poverty that actually can be reduced by funding

from the government but the corruptor steals it. In fact,
I am sure you all know about mafia of law court.Alleged
they smoothly kill people by taking the money and flee
people will look for the way to escape and manipulate the
away towards the reasons going abroad for injure
result of court. We arevery sorry, somehow we do not
treatment. The government then cant arrest them or
intend to put aside the dignity of judiciary but some
even take them into the tribunal of law court.
irresponsible people who abuse their power of legalized

government to do that.This clearly shows that the tribunal
Arguments:
of law court is still likely to be unfair for some cases.
We should understand clearly about the death penalty.
We, therefore, stand against
This means that people will not do corruption over and
government has possibility to fine the corruptor with
over because of afraid of death penalty. This is the
prison sentence. It aims at giving the corruptor the chance
prevention and not the action for only murdering the
to reconstruct their life into the way of goodness. The way
corruptor with beheading sentence. People will not do
that they and their family can live happily without any
that even trying for once if they know that the result of
feeling of being ashamed and blamed by all people in the
robbing money from the country is death. If we do not
country. Thus it is the main purpose of fining the corruptor
give death penalty so they think it does not matter
with the jail sentence and not with the death penalty that
stealing money because they will get fine only for one
criticized
and half year in the prison. After all, they can be free
Commission demanding all nations to not use the death
with much money that they get it beforehand.
sentence.
Another reason on why we should fine the corruptor
and
cursed
by
this motion because
International
Amnesty
with the death penalty. We can imagine that if we are

sick in very bad condition then the doctor will injure us
The next argument that we should pay more is that there
with very intensive treatment. And if somebody badly
are many people blamed because of the others crime. The
injured, so they will get in emergency treatment. It goes
bad people envy with the good people. So, they try to
the same with corruption, if we do not treat as
manipulate some cases for the good that possibly cause
emergency so it can cause deadly effect for those who
them jailed into prison. We should understand that not all
are infected with the virus called corruption.
government officials corrupt the money and put it into their

own pocket. They do good job without any tendency and
So ladies and gentlemen.
honestly manage the financial administration in advance,

but sadly, they are cursedly slandered by their fellow
The last statement is if we really want to make a
perpetrating corruption. That is definitely because the
change and better life in our future. We should do it
reason on how the bad tackling the good and succeed the
particularly starting from managing ourselves into very
goods position.
good maintenance by eradicating corruption. Thus, we

stand firmly in this motion that the corruptor must get
That is why we should convince you all that this motion is
death penalty. Thanks
clearly understood and tackling the problem properly. We

greatly against this motion ladies and gentlemen. Thanks
3rd speaker
Rebuttal:
Rebuttal:
Ok, ladies and gentlemen. Regarding the arguments from
Ladies and gentlemen. The debate is going to the end and
the opposition, we will give the rebuttal for eliminating
we are as the opposition, will give rebuttal for the last
the anxiety of being alleged as corruptor. We believe that
speaker of government. Here we go. Lets think critically
Commission of Corruption Eradication uses the available
with this motion ladies and gentlemen! The case of
and undisputed evidence to prove someone as the alleged
corruption is criminal but it is the same with the others.
corruptor deriving data and trustable witness. Because
You know why? That because corruption is the case of
the fine is death penalty that is considered as the heaviest
morality. If we can lead to morality into the goodness so it
sentence so the commission cannot take the decision
transforms people from the hell to the heaven. And the
recklessly. They must have used the principle of non-
government should give the chance for corruptor to do
error presumption ladies and gentlemen.
that. Death penalty cannot be used to do that but prison

sentence has the possibility to change corruptor realizing
Points of arguments from the first and second
their mistake.
speaker:
Point of arguments from the first and second speaker.
1. Regarding the law constitution, corruption
can
possibly
get
the
death
penalty
because of the mass misery for people.
1. Regarding human right, corruptor should

have chance to change their behavior
become the good people.
2. Regarding
corruption,
the
prevention
death
for
other
penalty
can
2. Regarding
mafia
of
law
court,
alleged
significantly prevent the vast corruption
corruptor has possibility that someone is
officially.
envy with them and manipulates cases for

them.
Since we know that corruption cannot be stopped by

common sentence for criminal only. That should be an
exclusive law for the corruptor because we already have
special court for them.
This motion is clearly understood that we should give

chance for the corruptor to be the good people.

However, if the sentence has been executed and the last
Corruption has similar crime with the bomber. They kill
was found that the alleged corruptor does not perpetrate,
many people consciously and they deserve to get death
how is the responsibility for the corruptor and the family.
penalty. It goes the same with corruptor. They steal the
They lose forever and no one can make them live again
money from country and it causes many people die
ladies and gentlemen.
because of the money that can help them was lose over
the corruptor ladies and gentlemen.
Therefore, that can cause the revenge from the family.

Who knows? They will do crime that is worse than
Corruption is a mass destruction of people and it causes
corruption ladies and gentlemen.
great misery for the poor killing them smoothly.

So, corruption is the matter of morality and we should
This case, we totally agree with the motion that the
change it step by step with prison sentence.
corruptor must get death penalty. Thank you ladies and

gentlemen.
We are as the opposition, firmly disagree with the motion.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
http://hukum.kompasiana.com/2012/02/02/the-corruptor-must-get-death-penalty435915.html
Should Corruptor Get More Punishment?
Do you know what the meaning of corruption is? Is corruption good behaviour?
Well, corruption means the abuse of legal power by government official for
immoral private gain. It is well-known done with tendency towards the benefits for
individual or group interest. Corruption is prominently forbidden not only by law
but also religion in Indonesia. That teaches us about bad impact of doing negative
things, like getting heavy punishment in the hereafter.
You know? According to the the countrys main audit agency, in 2007 60 percent
of Indonesian schools has misappropriated state funds devoted to improving and
repairing school facilities. And ICW has accused several government-run schools
in Jakarta of allegedly embezzling as much as $633 million in funds awarded by
the state for operational assistance.
So, corruption causes mass destruction for peoples misery and I think it should be
stopped by give the corruptors punishment. The punishment can be
impoverishment, exilement, and death penalty. There are some reasons why I can
say this. First, for the impoverishment. According to Transparency International
Indonesia Wasekjen, Luky Djani in Sindo Radio discussion at Warung Daun, Jl
Cikini Raya, Central Jakarta, Saturday (3/3), making corruptors poor criminals will
provide a scary role model for those who wish to engage in corruption. [This
strategy of] impoverishing the corruptors can be applied by the law enforcement
agencies. Beside that, from source Kompas.com, Presiden Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono also supports verdicts that impoverish corruptors. So, it has been
proven that impoverishment suitable for the punishment for corruptors.
Second, I will talk about exilement. If corruptors got exiled, espescially to an
unknown place / area, there, he/she will think about what he/she has done. In that
case, the possibility for them to do the same thing would be very slim, because of
the misery they felt as long as they got exiled. The second advantage is, they would
be far from the community. Which means that they are far from the cycle of
money, and they wont be able to do corruption again, because theyre far from the
thing that they would corrupt. So, thats the second option.
Third, death penalty. Based on constitution 1999 no. 31 article 2 stating that death
penalty can be executed in a certain condition and it is really a must to be done
including fining death penalty upon the corruptor.
If the death penalty really be executed it will give a shock therapy for the corruptor
because all of corruptors will be afraid to do corruption again. Then the candidate
of new corruptor will think twice or maybe 3 times, 4 times, 5 times up to
hundreds time to do corruption because if they will perpetrate corruption they will
get death penalty.
As we know, there are some state that apply this kind of punishment. The example
is China. In China, those wo commit corruption, they got punished by death
penalty. And the result is, the corruptors got reduced in massive number. The death
penalty is the most effective way amongst all. It is, i think, a very suitable
punishment. Why? Because they have killed so many people, aware or not. The
money that supposed to be given by the government for the nations need, lost to
an unknown source.
As the rising generation, we shall avoid corruption character, because it is bad for
yourself and others and I think everyone should be involved in the effort to
eradicate corruption.
http://visualsystem.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/contoh-hortatory-exposition/
Death penalty for Corruptors ?
Corruptors are people who do corruption. Corruption is taking the right of the other people for
themselves. For the example that the government who takes the countrys money for his self or
for his family. Corruption make the citizens suffer. Corruption kills thousands of people.
Corruption can make a country broken.
Some people think that give the death penalty for Corruptors is the good way for make the other
corrupters wary, so that they wont do corruption again and corruption will stop.
But think, if the corruptors dead what about the money they have taken? Of course their family
still can enjoy this life use the money, right?
I think Death penalty for corruptors is not effective, thats not comparable with what corruptors
have done to the citizens. Think, corruptors kill them, corruptors make citizens in suffer, and
corruptors are traitor. I think the good ways to make corruptors wary are:
1.take all of what they take from citizens
2.ask them for pay for what they have taken from citizens
3.impoverish them
4.give the ax for them
5.put them in jail for a long time
I think those are the effective ways for make the corruptors wary.
Death penalty for Corruptors ?

Corruptors are people who do corruption. Corruption is taking the right of the other people for themselves. For
the example that the government who takes the countrys money for himself or his family. Corruption make the
citizens suffer. Corruption kills thousands of people. Corruption can make a country broken.
Some people think that give the death penalty for Corruptors is the good way for make the other corrupters wary,
so that they wont do corruption again and corruption will stop.
But think, if the corruptor is dead what about the money they have taken? Of course their family still can enjoy life
using this money, right?
I think Death penalty for corruptors is not effective, thats not comparable with what corruptors have done to the
citizens. Think, corruptors kill them, corruptors make citizens suffer, and corruptors are traitor. I think the good
way to make corruptors wary are:
1.take all of what they take from citizens
2.ask them to pay for what they have stolen from citizens
3.impoverish them
4.give the ax for them
5.put them in jail for a long time
I think those are effective ways to make the corruptors wary.
Corruption is hard to fight.

It starts from thhe discount you get from your job to the big money in the government.
When talking about corruption, no countries are exempted, some goes with the 10$ note in the driving licence,
other like USA where the election is so expensive that the big company pay for it, how any president could not
send them back the lift. (french expression).
One way to fight corruption is to fight equally the people who get the money and the one who gives the money
especially at the top where big company corrupt so they get some market and break some rules that cost money.
Only money solutions can solve money matters.

Well you can kill few people too if you want... :))
http://www.italki.com/entry/281038
I personally support death penalty. As a working principle, it follows the logic that people that kill
other people with ease (bombers and drug dealers come to mind), should have no problems about
being killed in their chosen professions. Similarly, we forgive death in war zones, why can't the rule
applies in civil environment?
I know many people who disagreed, most of the people commenting on this article in Global Voice
are opposed to it.
Many of them are opposed to on moral reasons scripture or otherwise. That is not the case as
there is no religion that does not recognize some sort of capital punishment, including Christianity.
Barron Clarke a commenter on the said article quoted the Judaic Christian saying of
an eye for an eye
in its modern interpretation to be understood as setting the limit of maximum execution and that I
concur: capital punishment is the maximum punishment mentioned in the Christian doctrines, it
should be exercised with caution and only as the very last recourse for the most severe of crimes.
Various other parts of the Christian scriptures supported this view while maintaining to recognize
death as a form of legal and legitimate form of punishment at the same time.
While Jesus didn't live long enough to ever fight war or condemned anyone to death, various
different European churches in all the different flavors of Christianity went on in killing in the name
of God and execute condemned heresies for many centuries afterwards. There is no way to argue
that Christian scripture doesn't recognize capital punishment the different churches change their
views of capital punishment all across two millenias of Christian history, from applying it with zeal
(eg. During the Inquisitions) or to not at all (when Christian churches no longer carry the authority
to condemn and execute such punishment under secular governments).
Islam and Jews both recognize capital punishment as legit and legitimate. As a model for the Jew
regime, Israel's view on capital punishment is somewhat, understandably biased due to their very
unique history in the last century and all Islamic government in the world have death penalty laws
on the book.
Interpretations, however, vary from the different Moslem countries: Somali's an anarchy-state and
Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi-ancient kingdom state both maintain very orthodox and ancient
interpretations of scriptures - including public beheadings, gender based capital discrimination and
arbitrary moral sentencing in issuing deadly verdicts. Egypt and Jordan are more moderate include
more consideration as well as more secular - and accountable - arbitration. The courts in these
countries are also generally more accountable and open to outside influences when sentencing a
person to death.
Indonesia a country with large Moslem population and a secular government - is secular in state
sanctioned capital punishments. The religious court does not have the power to condemn anyone
to death and deals only with matrimony and dietary requirements. There is no reason to assume
that the Indonesian court issued death sentences with religious bias (favoring any particular
interpretation of scriptures). Capital punishment is only available on violent crimes or major drugrelated cases and hardly ever issued for political views since Indonesia moved to a more peaceful
democracy in the last decade.
The society is split and continued to grapple between its support and opposition of capital
punishment. In a weird logic, the largest group opposing the execution of these particular three
condemned men, is the single most vocal proponents of death penalty.
The public opinion on death penalties in all these countries are split the way it stirs passionate
debates in the United States to this day. The Supreme Court ruled for each state to rule their own
and some states, like Texas, prosecute death penalty aggressively in accordance to secular law,
available and legitimate, under the protection of the Constitution of the United States.
Somalia and Taliban Afghanistan have no internationally recognized governments and death
sentences are handed in arbitrary-summary condemnation performed by tribal court (often
involving only a sole individual with a chief-like authority and nonnegotiable and opaque morals).
The sentences vary wildly from one court to another within the same national borders. Death
sentences are often times political in these courts (political oppositions face almost certain deaths
under these governments), rather than moral (the world hears very little about it until they start
killing young woman with kids).
Both countries have proven to be the most resilient to American attempt to change their political
views rather than religions.
Germany has museum of state-sanctioned murders, a holocaust that shatters the conscience of
history to this very day. As a state policy, most of the modern western states abolished death
penalties more influenced by the events in WW II rather than pre-war moral consideration.
The court in Nuremberg sentenced Nazi war criminals to death and executed quite a few. Those
who were convicted were charged with state-sanction systematic murders were guilty in gross
abuse of their political and executive powers, rather than their personal beliefs in regards to death
penalty.
Indeed, in a perverse logic, a whole new set of laws were created to accommodate this new class
of heinous crime and the resulting high court was set to deal with only the most extreme of crimes
in the Hague. In a curious observation, it's interesting that Hermann Goering, Saddam Husein,
Milosevic and Pinochet, four of the most famous defendants in crimes against humanity trials of
the last 60 years, all died before the court had the chance to sentence their crimes. Maybe there is
a higher justice in the power of nature.
Post communist Russia make Stalin's gulag archipelago a tourist destination these days. From a
monarchy to a communist state to a now crowdy democracy, the Russians remain a firm believer
in capital punishment.
Singapore government prosecutes death penalty aggressively in drug cases but not on political
dissidents. This is a government with a peculiar obsession in legislative social engineering and it
has very effectively been a successful deterrent creating an almost drug free in Singapore
(neighboring Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all have thriving underground illicit substance
industries and most probably consume more illegal drugs collectively than any other country on
the planet).
In imperial Japan, one form of honorable traditional conduct an acceptance of failure is to
murder yourself. Hara Kiri is probably the most impressive execution of all death sentences. The
Philippines, a proto-democracy with Catholic and American influences, death penalty had been
repealed and reintroduced and repealed again during the last twenty years. China executes more
people than any other country on the planet and recognizes abortion as a form of population
control.
As a belief held globally, by population headcount, opposition to death penalty almost certainly
forms only a small minority mainly only to include those who represent power rather those with
more acceptable morals. This was true for the ancient Roman empire when murderers of Roman
citizens were swiftly dealt with in the most severe manners, often including burning down entire
villages of the offending groups and remains true on the protection awarded to the conduct of
American soldiers overseas by not having them placed under international laws.
Death penalty is made available in societies and civilizations by necessity and interests rather than
moral, imposed by the more powerful rather than the righteous. It has nothing to do with religion
or morals.
If one were to argue that it is not far, let me say that I don't even believe in absolute, universal
moral codes. While Life is a precious commodity across all civilizations in all of history, Death
fluctuates in value. Stalin famously said that one person's death is a tragedy and one million
deaths are statistics. For the less brute, George Orwell put society in more elegant manners where
all animals are equal, but some more equal than others.
Some are worth more than others and that is a hard thing to deal with. Life is the only thing worth
dying for, is my own, personal morbid fascination with Death. Capital punishment is an interesting
subject and probably deserves a further discussion. For now, in accordance to the prevailing law, I
think all execution should carried out as swiftly as possible. Death and taxes you will always pay
your dues, that's my personal beliefs.
I don't mention their names on principle because I don't want them turning up on Google
searches.
That's my own, personal morbid fascination with Death and I intend to write more on Death as a
subject in the future.
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2456/pro-death-penalty/
Between Pro and Contra about death penalty
As a matter of fact, people have natural ability as their background. Every religion
in this world explains about it. And people also have rationality which
differentiates them with other creature like animals and plants. So those, actually
every human around us has potential to do a virtue. Nevertheless, they also have
potential to do offense as that we had seen it since a long time ago. Thus that
logical consequence is every criminal human has potential to change self been
better. So that, the human duty is help each other to prevent offense. And curiously,
a manner to overcome it is death penalty that has been done since a long time ago.
Apparently now, some people have a different opinion. Those are pro and contra
regarding with death penalty.
Some people agree with death penalty because of many reasons. Firstly, death
penalty is very needed to punish a recidivist, corruptor, and planned killer. To be or
not to be they have to get death penalty because they will intimidate many person
and state. Secondly, death penalty has essential law as be inserted in KUHP.
On the other hand, some people disagree with death penalty because firstly the
death is a god authority. And we have not the authority to kill the person. Secondly,
especially in Indonesia, the death penalty oppose with a human right and Pancasila.
People have a right to be alive and second principle from Pancasila that it put on
the human in good level.
For me personally, I do disagree with death penalty because in my opinion, death
penalty is final punishment. A criminal do not get the opportunity to change,
improve the mistake by increasing glorious humanity. So that, a crime will not
finish with leave an animosity. More better if we give them an education about
morals. And finally, I recommended that better if the criminal is given the other
punishment, for example the moral education and character building.
http://latahzanwalatanza.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/between-pro-and-contraabout-death-penalty/

Debate over Death Penalty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate over Death Penalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Death Penalty

an example of arguments in a discussion text

wonder if those people are worthy of my feeling.

e. Many rich people need to hate the poor people.

Argumentative Essay CORRUPTOR SHOULD BE GIVEN

Seven Years for Gayus : Discussion Text

that influence the decision of the court.

Anisa Tri Wahyuni says:

February 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Anisa Tri Wahyuni says:

February 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Anisa Tri Wahyuni says:

February 14, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Riesca Martdiyanti says:

Riesca Martdiyanti says:

Shinta Ayu P.P.D says:

puput nurovy says:

February 10, 2011 at 4:46 pm

Zanne Sandriati Putri says:

February 10, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Okky Paulin says:

February 10, 2011 at 1:40 pm

1. I agree with the parliament. Gaius is a corruptr heavyweight, but the

Riya Rosanti says:

February 10, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Gaius should be punished severely, because it has been detrimental to the

Aisyatun Nur Laely says:

February 10, 2011 at 12:36 pm

Rini Purnamasari says:

February 10, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Rini Purnamasari says:

February 10, 2011 at 12:33 pm

ika ristiani says:

February 10, 2011 at 11:12 am

Rakhmawati Nabila says:

February 10, 2011 at 10:21 am

Zanne Sandriati Putri says:

February 10, 2011 at 9:40 am

February 10, 2011 at 7:49 am

Lona Puspa Amelia says:

February 10, 2011 at 6:25 am

Yurike Eliawati says:

February 10, 2011 at 5:48 am

Firmansyah Putra says:

February 10, 2011 at 3:46 am

Firmansyah Putra says:

February 10, 2011 at 3:42 am

Eko Purnomo says:

February 10, 2011 at 3:35 am

Oki Rizki M says:

February 9, 2011 at 7:56 pm

Firmansyah Putra says:

Merjemahkan teks atau laman web

February 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm

REKA GUSTAMALA says:

February 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

waenah alfiana says:

February 9, 2011 at 8:32 am

Eko Purnomo says:

February 9, 2011 at 4:49 am

Firmansyah Putra says:

February 9, 2011 at 4:30 am

Firmansyah Putra says: