Capital punishment is an old and cruel type of sentencing that no longer adeptly conforms to modern societies. Originally, while Canada was still under British rule, the death penalty could be applied to 230 offences, “including stealing turnips and being found disguised in a forest” (Capital Punishment, The Canadian Encyclopedia). In 1967, when Capital Punishment was unconstitutionalized by the Supreme Court in a majority ruling, the country changed for the better. The economic, cultural and political toll that the death penalty placed on the country was lifted, and the debate over it, that has now been raging for forty years, began. Politically, the country must be careful when considering reconstitutionalizing capital punishment because …show more content…
However the bill was ignored; it wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court of Canada voted for its unconstitutionalization and won with a six vote majority. Despite this five year delay in passing the bill, the last individuals to be sentenced with the death penalty were hung in 1962. Based on modern political views, it is assumed that it was the liberals of Canada who voted to abolish capital punishment, while conservatives still support the death penalty. However, it has been proven that countries who take a liberal approach to legal sentencing have lower crime rates. Sweden, named the most liberal country in the world by the World Values Study, abolished capital punishment in 1921 and although it’s crime rate “showed a small uptick in crime in 2015”(Michelle Mark, Business Insider), “the general crime rate in Sweden is below the U.S. national average” (Sweden 2016 Crime & Safety Report, Bureau of Diplomatic Security). It has also been seen that Portugal, another country without capital punishment, “has a relatively low rate of violent crime”(Portugal 2017 Crime & Safety Report, Bureau of Diplomatic Security), the exception in this country is its high rates of petty theft, however as this is not a crime deserving of capital punishment it should be included in the comparison. Therefore, these statistics demonstrate that the liberal …show more content…
As a nation, Canadians pride themselves on their acceptance and, as the World Atlas calls it: “Canada [is] the best country worldwide”(Most Loved Countries in the World, WorldAtlas.com) according to popular opinion. Among the most respectable nation in the world, while Canada sits at the top of the list, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia are all close followers and all of these countries have abolished the death penalty (Most Loved Countries in the World, WorldAtlas.com). Similarly, the United States is [one] of the most hated countries in the world” (The Most Hated Countries in the Entire World – 2017 List, Gazette Review). This demonstrates that countries which still sentence the death penalty have much lower approval ratings than those who have abolished capital punishment. Furthermore, Norway, a country whose prison system is dedicated to the rehabilitation of criminals rather than the punishment of them, “has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years” (Why Norway's prison system is so successful, Business Insider). Therefore proving that rehabilitating criminals achieves better results then punishing and executing them. As a society it is important to consider which country Canada would like to choose as a role model for future years. In order to progress as a country,
In June 2014, Justin Bourque was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder after shooting three RCMP officers and wounding two others in Moncton, New Brunswick (Chronicle Herald 2014). He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for seventy-five years (Chronicle Herald 2014). Bourque’s sentence is unprecedented and is the longest sentence in Canadian history (Chronicle Herald 2014). A Canadian judge has not given a harsh a punishment since the final executions in 1962 (Chronicle Herald 2014).
In June 2014, Justin Bourque was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder after shooting three RCMP officers and wounding two others in Moncton, New Brunswick (Chronicle Herald 2014). He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for seventy-five years (Chronicle Herald 2014). Bourque’s sentencing is unprecedented and is the longest sentence in Canadian history (Chronicle Herald 2014). A Canadian judge has not given a harsh a punishment since the final executions in 1962 (Chronicle Herald 2014).
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
Argumentative Essay on Capital Punishment in Australia Capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane and should not be re-introduced into Australia. Although capital punishment has been abolished, the debate on this topic has never abated. When a particularly heinous crime is committed, this debate arouses strong passions on both sides. Many who advocate the abolition of capital punishment consider the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, while those who favor of punishment by death see it as a form of just retribution for the gravest of crimes. Determining whether Queensland should re-introduce capital punishment as a sentence will be the focus of this assignment.
Canada has been a fully abolitionist country since the 10th of December 1998, and has since continued to maintain a strong anti-death penalty attitude (Amnesty, 2015). The last death penalty sentenced under Canada’s Criminal Code was given in 1962 to two convicted felons charged with first degree murder (Amnesty 2015). After the two were hanged, it brought the total number of people executed in Canada to 710, marking the end of an era (Amnesty, 2015). The death penalty has been a fiercely debated topic spanning even before 1867, Canada’s establishment. Notably however, Canada’s Prime Ministers have long opposed the death penalty starting with John Diefenbaker (Amnesty, 2015). Only the second most recent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has
Capital punishment is crime's most dreaded consequence, death. Hanging was Canada's form of capital punishment up until 1976 when it was abolished. Webster's Dictionary defines capital punishments as: "The penalty of death for the commission of a crime." (Webster's, 1994, 43). The chance of capital punishment being reinstated in Canada has been very slim up until now. Recently the Canadian Alliance Party has put forth efforts to reinstate it, which has put the controversial topic back up for debate. This has divided many Canadians concerning their beliefs. Capital punishment should never be reinstated in Canada as it is a barbaric practice that is unjust. This essay will clearly demonstrate that reinstating capital punishment would be illegal as it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Deceleration of Human Rights. In addition, this paper will show that capital punishment is a cruel and barbaric punishment. Finally, this paper will examine how capital punishment does nothing to deter people from committing crimes.
As violence becomes an increasing concern among Canadians, people are calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment. This controversial issue has been ailing politicians and public morality since its abolition in 1976. As one examines the arguments for and against the reinstatement of capital punishment; examples of modern day cases dealing with capital punishment; and statistics on such cases, one can better appreciate the reasons why this barbaric form of punishment should remain in the past.
Early societies were based on a simple code of law: "an eye for an eye
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
Capital punishment, a topic that is constantly debated, is questioned on whether or not it serves its purpose which is to deter criminals and if it is morally acceptable. It is my goal to evaluate arguments that promote or reject capital punishment and its deterrence factor. It would be beneficial comparing crime statistics for states that uphold and states that abolish capital punishment. Finally, an investigation of criminals facing the death penalty and their thoughts as well as modern prison conditions will provide insight to this debate. Capital punishment could be a great deterrent to crime or it may have no effect at all.
Guernsey, J. B. (2010). Death penalty: fair solution or moral failure. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group, Inc. Retrieved February 8, 2011 from http://books.google.com/books?id=38slHSsFFrgC&pg=PA125&dq=death+penalty+in+other+countries&hl=en&ei=F6dQTZHLBsm_tgfD7rHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=death%20penalty%20in%20other%20countries&f=false
Almost all nations in the world either have the death sentence or have had it at one time. It was used in most cases to punish those who broke the laws or standards that were expected of them. Since the death penalty wastes tax money, is inhumane, and is largely unnecessary it should be abolished in every state across the United States. The use of the death penalty puts the United States in the same category as countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which are two of the world’s worst human rights violators (Friedman 34). Lauri Friedman quotes, “Executions simply inject more violence into an already hostile American society.”
A contentious issue in current debate is the death penalty and its application in society. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, occurs when a individual is punished by execution as a consequence of an offence they committed (Taylor, 2014). Although Australia does not practice the death penalty, many countries continue to employ it as a means of justice and uphold its value in society. The death penalty debate is a multifaceted issue, encompassing many aspects of society including ethics and morality, the judicial system, and politics and the economy. It will be argued that the death penalty is a morally dubious and obsolete practice that is no longer relevant in modern judiciary, as it breaches the inviolable human right to life. Ethics and morality are primary arguments for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, as some individuals believe that the death penalty is a immoral practice and others consider that it can be morally justified when prolific crimes are committed. Punishment is fundamental element to any legal system as a means of justice and ensuing that the offender is unable to commit additional crimes; however, in the case of the death penalty there can be dire consequences if the legal system is wrong. Politics and the economy are also greatly influenced by the death penalty as they determine if the practice is maintained. The death penalty breaches a number of human rights laws and some individuals support that it is immoral; however, others consider it to be justifiable due to the heinous actions of the offender.
Capital punishment is now illegal in many countries, like the United Kingdom, France and Germany, but it is also legal in many other countries, such as China and the USA. There is a large debate on whether or not capital punishment should be illegal all over the world, as everyone has a different opinion on it. In this essay, I will state arguments for and against the death penalty, as well as my own opinion: capital punishment should be illegal everywhere. Firstly, many believe capital punishment should be reinstated in the United Kingdom because of the financial cost of prisoners. Annually, it costs about £26,978 per prisoner when they are in jail.