The Issue of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment can be defined as: the execution of a criminal pursuant to a sentence of death imposed by a competent court. There are many different views, both for and against the death penalty in Canada. Some people argue for it, citing the expense of keeping murderers alive for years and years while others argue against it saying that it makes us no better than those we aim to punish. In 1976, capital punishment was banned in Canada. This essay plans to investigate the pros and cons of the death penalty debate in Canada. Is it time to reinstate the death penalty? Since the death penalty was abolished in 1976, the debate over whether or not life sentencing is a good idea has been rising.

Some feel that an eye for and eye isn t the proper way of doing things because it s morally wrong. However, since life sentencing took over, polls have shown that 70 percent of Canadians are in support of the death penalty for certain levels of crime, such as serial murderers. In 1967, the Liberal Party of Canada (who was in power at the time) passed a bill stating that no person shall die for their crimes unless the crime is murder of a peace officer. The bill was originally passed for a five year trial period, but was extended in 1973, and finally passed in 1976. To us, life sentencing poses an important question. That is, is it really worth sentencing someone to life in prison with no chance for parole? What we mean is, are the cost and possible over-crowding of prisons worth it for someone who will never again be a productive member of society?

Order custom essay The Issue of Capital Punishment with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Not to sound heartless, but it would be a lot more economical to execute those sentenced to life without parole. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian tax dollars are not being spent on social programs like healthcare and education, are not being spent of reducing the deficit, or on research to cure diseases and save lives. Our money is being spent to provide a roof, clothes, and three square meals a day to murderers and rapists. Statistics have shown that it costs a little over $60 000 US each year to keep people facing life sentences in prison alive. Think about it. Take $10 000 off the top for wages for prison staff and taxes, etc., and that leaves $50 000. Fifty thousand dollars a year, per convict, going to a dead end. Obviously this money could do much more good if it were spent elsewhere. Life sentences are ridiculous; these criminals get better treatment that 40 percent of our society. How is that fair? These people have committed a wrong against society, and instead of punishing them we are agreeing to see to all their basic needs until they die. That s not justice.

Another strong argument in favour of the death penalty is that of deterrence. If people know they could face the death penalty, are they then less likely to commit the crime? In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only 0.1 percent are actually executed. There are also those who would say ask why we would kill people to show that killing people is wrong? That two wrongs don t make a right, and therefore, executions are tantamount to murder.

First of all, the term murder is specifically defined in any dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with malice and aforethought. So logically, the word murder cannot be used to describe executions since the death penalty is the law. To do so is an obvious abuse of semantics. Second of all, comparing executions to murders is like comparing incarcerating people to kidnapping or charging taxes and fines to extortion. There is a difference between violent crime and punishment. Is there a contradiction in a policeman speeding after a speeder to enforce speeding laws? One displays a serious lack of moral judgment to believe that just because two practices share a physical similarity means that they are morally identical. Law enforcement officials act well within the law when they punish criminals whether it be by charging fines, incarcerating them, or conducting executions, thereby, defending public safety. The issue of capital punishment will always be a controversial one.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer