The issue of capital punishment has always being a controversial one. The heated debate about the pros and cons of death penalty does not have a clear resolution. Canadian criminal history had been filled with the altercation of this subject ever since its removal from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976. Later on, in 1998 capital punishment was also abolished from the Canadian National Defence Act of the military counterpart. Many organizations such as Amnesty International protest against the use of capital punishment and point out its negatives. Nevertheless it is obvious that its advantages far out weigh the disadvantages. The death penalty is the most extreme form of punishment that is used to eliminate the threat once and for all, protect the members of the society, emphasize the importance of retribution, and most importantly act as a powerful deterrent to serious crimes.
The most obvious contribution of death penalty is to make sure that the criminals will never harm anyone again. Once a criminal is sent to jail for life then that inmate is basically free to do whatever he/she wants without fear for any further consequences. Any inmate could cause uproar or a riot in a prison and there is no punishment that could further prosecute them. This would cause certain violent criminals to endanger the safety of the guards or other inmates. An inmate serving a life in prison could simply stab another inmate to death, then surrender to the guards, and nothing would happen. In an in-depth analysis by a prominent economist of Chicago University, Isaac Enrlich showed that, on average, about 18 potential victims are saved by every execution. Further studies from Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul Rubin, and Joanna Shepherd based on Enrlich’s findings showing a margin of error of around 10. This means that as many as 28 victims could be saved per execution but no less than 8. (Espejo, P11).
When a mass murderer or a high profile criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment, there is always the risk of having that individual back in society with the possibility of parole. There is a high likelihood that the criminal will continue their previous rampage after the release and pose a dire threat to the safety of the victim’s family members and to those who testified against them. There is also the chance of an inmate escaping from a prison, continue his past behaviours and endangering society (Johnson). For people with no hope of rehabilitation and remorse for their actions, it is much better off for the society if these emotionless savages rest in peace.
The whole purpose of having a legal system with the appropriate and just punishment is so that the society and its citizens will live in a safe and protected environment. However, if violent and psychopathic murderers are allowed back on the street then the justice system would lose its main purpose. Canada had always been a nation that showed extreme leniency towards criminals. The phrase “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” shows the Canadian views on the freedom and rights of the accused. On the other hand what about the victims and their families? Canada had done way too much in protecting the criminals but no insufficient comfort is given to the victims. The issue of morals also arises in the section, as people believe that society does not have the right to take away the life of a criminal who slaughtered other people.
There is no justification for the statement and the reasoning is simply naive. From a religious perspective, God allows the death penalty as stated in the 10 Commandments. Furthermore, there are numerous references from the bible allowing the capital punishment, examples would be “The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes.” (Bible Questions Answered). From a macro view of the society, murderers who showed no remorse or mercy should not receive any leniency when sentenced. Crimes against society, especially murder must face severe punishment, criminals should face the consequences of their actions, and most importantly, the safety of the citizens should be taken into consideration when dangerous ex-cons are released into the streets (Szumski, Hall, Brusell P19~47). One of the best quotes to define the contributions death penalty made to civilization would be the one by a judge from New York who stated, “The death penalty is a warning, just as a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down (Parks, P56). Furthermore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (Charter S. 7) guarantees the safety and lives of all Canadians. However, if serial killers are allowed to live, then it will seriously jeopardize the safety of citizens. All in all, for the sake of the wellbeing of the Canadian society, heinous criminals must be eliminated.
Retribution is an important of the Canadian Judicial System. The concept of retribution dates all the way back to the 18th century B.C.E. The first written record was found within the Code of King Hammurabi of the Babylonians, which was the foundation of all legal systems in the world (Encyclopaedia of Death and Dying). Life is extremely precious, and by taking someone else’s life, the criminal is forfeiting their own. As an eye for an eye ideology, the most justifiable punishment would be for the culprit to pay with their life (Buzzle Web Portal). This does not make the government a “murderer”, but simply an instrument that is used to carry out justice. In cases that the accused is a serial killer and have slaughtered numerous victims then the death penalty should be absolute. In the Pickton incident, Robert Pickton, in cold blood, butchered and dismembered over 50 female prostitutes and fed the remains to the pigs in his farm (R. c. Pickton). Other abominations of nature include: Cliford Olson (R. v. Olson) Paul Bernardo (R. v. Bernardo), and etc. Retribution is a fundamental aspect in the criminal law, and is the basis of all punishments. By committing grievous acts of murderous nature, the criminal deserves the penalty of death.
One of the foremost purposes of capital punishment is to deter would be criminals from committing grievous acts. By preventing citizens from committing horrendous acts in the first place would be the best result of instating the capital punishment. Many anti-capital punishment protesters state that capital punishment does not deter crime, which is absolutely false. First of all, every human being regards life as the most precious element. It is part of the human instinct and nature to avoid harm and death at all cost, using betrayal, bribery, and even killing. There are numerous cases where criminals’ murderous actions are prevented through the fear of capital punishment. In a 1972 New York City bank robbery, John Wojowicz and 2 accomplices held 8 hostages for 14 hours. During the event, Wojowicz said, “I’ll shoot everyone in the bank. The Supreme Court will let me get away with this. There’s no death penalty. It’s ridiculous. I can shoot everyone here, then throw my gun down and walk out and they can’t put me in the electric chair.” (Parks, P8). Another case regarding the deterrence effect of the capital punishment is revealed during an interview with a former Texas police officer whose name has been censored. He states that he had personally spoken to a convict who was involved in acts that could have turned into a death penalty case. The officer describes the details of the conversation: ‘˜I was having a conversation with him in jail and I congratulated him on not being stupid enough to pull a gun on us. He looked at me real serious-like and said, “You know, when I saw you guys I knew I was going away forever, but as long as I’m alive maybe I’ll get out someday.
If they stick me in the gas chamber, it’s done.”‘ This particular individual was a drug dealer with an arsenal of ammunitions and weapons. However, he avoided direct confrontations with the authorities that could have landed him a date with death. Joanna Shepherd of Emory University takes as evidence the fact that a large number of death row inmates are fighting to abolish execution could mean that they are afraid of it (Parks, P56). It’s crystal clear that capital punishment is the most dominant deterrent available to date.
Some people would argue that by simply killing dangerous criminals there is also an inevitable possibility that innocent people could be charged and executed for crimes they did not commit. However, does this mean that we should completely abolish the death penalty just because there is a remote chance of innocent people being charged? This argument could be used for punishment of any nature and not just the death penalty. There have been no recordings of any wrongfully accused person to be executed in Canada. Furthermore, what people should realize is that the problem is not the death penalty itself, but the corruption and substandard application of the judicial system that leads to the conviction of wrongly accused (Canadian Points of View). Many abolitionists would bring up the cost of execution which is approximately 2.5 times more expensive than a life sentence, nonetheless people should realize that money should not be a factor or issue when the justice and security of millions of citizens are concerned. There are also criticism regarding the human rights of the criminals and that is absolutely naïve. What about the victim’s rights? The murder victims’ rights are obviously violated, and they did not get a second chance, so why should the murderers. The most obnoxious argument from the opposition side would be the saying that government does not have the right to take away a person’s life. If this argument is taken to the extreme then the country should abolish their
army as well, since the main function of an army would be taking the lives of enemy soldiers.
The death penalty stirred up great arguments from the pro and against side. However, capital punishment is crucial in enforcing the laws to better protect the people of the nation and to preserve justice. Death penalty serves to discourage serious crimes, executing murderous criminals to prevent further threats, to ensure general safety for the greater society, enforcing the retribution aspect of law, and deter criminals from committing gruesome crimes. Capital punishment must be reinstated for decriminalization and the safety of the people.
Bibliography
Primary:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, S. 7
R. v. Olson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 296
R. v. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198
R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No. 2988
Books:
Espejo, Roman. Does capital punishment deter crime? . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Print.
Hays, Scott. Capital Punishment. Vero Beach: The Rourke Corporation Inc., 1990. Print.
Peggy, Parks. Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?. San Diego : Reference Point Press Inc., 2010. Print.
Sullivan, Carol. The death penalty: identifying propaganda techniques. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1989. Print.
Websites:
Anderson, Kerby. “Capital Punishment.” Leadership University. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. .
Austin, James. “Capital Punishment .” Encyclopedia of Death and Dying. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. .
Johnson, Priya. “Death Penalty Pros and Cons.” Buzzle Web Portal. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. .
Klassen, Jeff. “The Reinstatement of the Death Penalty is Necessary in Canada.” Canadian Points of View. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Munroe, Susan. “History of Capital Punishment in Canada .” Canada Online . N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. .
“The Reinstatement of the Death Penalty is Necessary in Canada..” Canadian Points of View. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. .
“What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?.” Bible Questions Answered. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. .
