Capital Punishment

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Capital Punishment

Canada’s decision to abolish the Death penalty was one of the best they’d ever made. This type of punishment is cruel and senseless and even a vicious criminal shouldn’t be forced to endure such torture. The reason why this issue is so controversial is because of the opposing arguments. Each side presents many appealing “facts”, but the truth is that many of the arguments presented to support capital punishment are not facts at all. For example, one of the key reasons why the death penalty is used, is to scare other potential murders away from committing the crime. According to accurate statistics though, having the death penalty in play hasn’t made any significant impact on murder rates in any of the countries where this punishment is used. (Gendreau & Renke, 2000)

Laws concerning the death penalty (1859-present)

Until 1859, Canadian law said that “stealing turnips”, and being found “disguised in a forest”(Gendreau & Renke, 2000), plus another 230 offences, were punishable by death. By 1865 only murder, treason, and rape were capital offences. In 1914 the first request for its abolition was made by Robert Bickerdike who presented a private member's bill to parliament. The law remained unchanged though despite frequent submissions. In 1967, a government bill to apply mandatory life imprisonment in all murder cases, except when the victim was an on-duty police officer or prison guard, was passed by a vote of 105 to 70 for a 5-year trial period. This legislation was again sustained in 1973, supported by a 13-vote majority. By a majority of 6 votes, the House of Commons abolished hanging in 1976. (Gendreau & Renke, 2000) This decision was received by Canadian society with mixed opinions, but the clear majority of our population was in favour of the new legislation.

Arguments i) against and ii) supporting Capital Punishment

i) Against

Unfair Sentencing

It is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. In countries that practice capital punishment, the people on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also mainly Afro-American or Hispanic which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US. As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. (Fieser, 1997)

Extenuating circumstances

People who commit violent and disturbing crimes have often suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, abuse/cruelty, abandonment, lack of love, and a host of destructive social conditions. These “mitigating” circumstances may have damaged their humanity to the point that it is unfair to hold them fully responsible for their wrongdoing(s) (Cauthen, 1999). If this were correct, the Canadian justice system would definitely be the most sensible approach, for they should not be punished for their upbringing! They would receive treatment and most likely, all efforts would be made to rehabilitate the individual- they would not be killed.

Possibility of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Extenuating circumstances

Possibility of mistake

In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further corrupted by the unnerving fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Society must determine whether the benefits gained through execution of convicted killers outweigh the risk of executing innocent persons (Fieser, 1997). Bedau and Radelet (1988) studied capital convictions for the period from 1900 to 1986 and identified 350 cases in which defendants were erroneously convicted of capital crimes. Twenty four of these people were executed for crimes that they did not commit (Honeyman & Ogliff, 1996). In countries where the death penalty is currently not an issue, if a convicted murderer were discovered to be innocent they would simply be released from prison and compensated. If they had been the victims of capital punishment though, people like Guy-Paul Morin and David Milgard would not be alive today to experience their rightful freedom.

Morals (changing society’s views for the worse)

Capital punishment is “undignified, inhumane, and contrary to love.” (Feiser, 1997) It is a cruel punishment and when we kill someone just to make us, or the victim’s families better we have stooped to the murderer’s level. We are also promoting the wrong ideas for future generations. We are “teaching and sanctioning revenge” by saying that it is okay to “resent a hurt, and hurt back” (Winters, 1997, p.110). If society continues to encourage retribution, it is generating a vicious and dangerous cycle. It invites greater retaliations from the first, which in turn invites counter-reprisal, which again invites more revenge (Winters, 1997, p. 37)

Another disturbing effect of the death penalty is that it tends to “weaken and destroy our natural horror of man’s bloodshed.” We all have natural instincts that tell us that it is wrong to injure or kill our fellow man. When society deliberately decides to inflict deadly harm to others on a routine basis though, our conscience eventually adapts to this thought and we no longer feel that murder is so wrong or barbaric. We would be unknowingly setting an example for future generations and ourselves that killing another human being isn’t so terrible after all.

When we discover that a convict is going to be executed or hung etc., many of us automatically empathize with the murderer- which is an extremely unhealthy thing to do. They forget that this person has committed a violent crime and are only thinking about what a great shame it was that the state “sanctioned yet another murder”. When you sympathize or share sorrow with the criminal you are making him seem a saint or a martyr when he is the opposite of both. The glorification of the death of the culprit is dangerous, and it sends out the wrong message to the public- that if you murder, you are a hero. (Winter, 1997, p. 38)

ii) Supporting

Deterrence

This is the main argument that supporters of capital punishment present to their opposition. They state that there is no better deterrent for would-be murders to see someone else being put to death for that crime. It also ensures that the convicted killers will never commit that crime again. The only problem is that statistically, the countries with the Death Penalty in effect haven’t seen a significant drop in murder rates while using capital punishment. (Satris, 1994, p. 252)

Retribution and “An eye for an eye”

The controversy and decisions concerning the Death Penalty doesn’t just affect the criminals themselves. The families of the victims also have strong opinions about capital punishment and they are usually in favour of it. These people have suffered through great amounts of pain and the general consensus (in countries where the Death Penalty is used) is that they need to make the murderers pay for the crimes they committed with the same treatment that they gave their victims. Or in other words, if the crime produced death, than they deserve death. This is known as the “eye for an eye” belief that was first presented in the 18th century’s BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi. (Welsh, 1999)

Economical Factors

It is often said by supporters of the death penalty that it is more cost efficient to subject the murderer to an execution (or lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, or the gas chamber) than to support the criminal in prison for life. This would only be said by an uneducated supporter though because of the following evidence:

The most comprehensive study in the U.S. found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, 1993/Winters, 1997)
In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security for forty years.

This expensive trend continues with almost all of the other states, especially in the states of Florida and California (Truth Seeker, 1994/Winters, 1997).

Controversies concerning the current law

The law that has been in action since 1967 (concerning capital punishment), currently abolishes the death penalty in Canada. Only recently did Canadians begin to have a negative response to this legislation. Many in Canada believe that our murder rates are rising too rapidly and that we need to toughen up on our justice system. This is the type of view that frightens the rest of Canadians that don’t share their vision. As you can see in the following article excerpt, attempts have been made by some members of parliament to change our existing laws.

“ONTARIO'S TOP LAWMEN URGE: Death for cop killers

Cop killers should be executed, Ontario's justice ministers say.

Solicitor General Bob Runciman and Attorney General Charles Harnick are calling for the return of the death penalty in the wake of the murder of Det.-Const. Bill Hancox last week. ‘When there is no question of guilt, capital punishment is appropriate,’ Runciman said yesterday. ‘I don't think I would want to restrict it to police killers. I think it is an appropriate penalty for the crime; I don't think it is a deterrent.’ Harnick echoed Runciman. ‘I think there are circumstances where I would agree very much with that,’ Harnick said. But Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty said: ‘I don't think it is appropriate to kill the killers. I'm opposed to that.’ Runciman said he is prepared to lobby Ottawa for the restoration of execution.” (Harder, 1998)

It hasn’t just been provincial parliament that has expressed interest in changing our existing law though. Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance gave the impression in the recent federal election that Capital Punishment would possibly be one of their priorities if they came into power (which they weren’t successful at doing). They explained that they were considering holding national referendums on controversial issues like the Death penalty. Their opinions about this issue were implied in the following section of their platform. “The Canadian Alliance believes that … Canadians are tired of a justice system that often seems more concerned about the rights and needs of criminals than with the rights and needs of victims. We need clear consequences for crime and compassion for victims.”