Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty In Canada

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

supported the death penalty (Amnesty, 2015). Also more recently, in 2001, the Supreme Court decided that it would be a violation of the constitution for Canada to extradite a prisoner who faced a death penalty were destined. Then in 2005, the government signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Amnesty, 2015). The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a treaty founded by the U.N and currently signed by 37 countries stating that no citizen shall be executed and each country shall do it’s most to abolish the death penalty (OHCR, 2016). With this treaty in place and no mechanism for withdrawal built into the document, this legally prevents any return of the death penalty in Canada. Unfortunately, the U.N treaty does not hold severe repercussions if Canada chose to withdraw from it, making the document more of a statement than a legally binding document. Thus resulting in continuing controversy over the law. Although the death penalty has been abolished there remains a strong support for the death penalty to be re-instated in Canada with 3 in 5 Canadians saying they support the death penalty (Angus Reid, 2012). But, the death penalty should maintain it’s abolished status in Canada as it is an outdated punishment that is not always used correctly, fails to deter criminals and consumes the public's precious time and resources without a justified result.
One of the biggest disadvantages of the death penalty is the fact that it consumes an absurd amount of taxpayers dollars and time.

Unlike popular belief, the cost of sentencing someone to death is actually more expensive than a life sentence in prison. In Washington, since the death penalty was reinstated 5 people have been put to death costing taxpayers roughly $120 million, that's roughly $24 million per case (Seattle University, 2015). A reason that people advocate strongly for the death penalty is because they believe that they should not have to pay for the costs to keep criminals fed, sheltered and imprisoned. In fact, 56% of Canadians surveyed believed that the one time cost of a lethal injection is cheaper and will allow their money to go towards something more advantageous like healthcare or education (Angus Reid). This is actually quite different from the truth, in fact is estimated that it costs $740 000 on average to put someone in prison for life. It is also estimated that it costs roughly $1.26 million to sentence someone to death (Seattle University, 2015). (There seems to be a discrepancy between how much a single case costs and how much Washington spent since the death penalty has been reinstated, but I could not find evidence to why that is). Among the reasons why the death penalty is so expensive is the fact that the time in courts is quite lengthy. Jury trials averaged 40.13 days in cases where the death penalty was being sought, but only 16.79 days

when it was not an option. Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court assigned to write opinions estimated they spent 20 times more hours on death penalty appeals than on non-death appeals. (Seattle University, 2015) This amount of time in the courts only accounts for the actual time spent in courts, not all the other time used outside the courts towards the case. The reason such an extensive time frame is needed in the courts is to limit (and hopefully eliminate) the number of wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, even with the exorbitant costs and lengthy time period used to convict someone with death penalty, mistakes are often made.
This brings me to the next point, the death penalty is often used incorrectly and sentences innocent people to die. The fact that the government sentences innocent people is paramount to the government committing the very thing they are punishing, murder. Since 1970 over 8000 people have been sentenced to death, recently it has been found that roughly 4% of all cases are wrongful convictions meaning that about 400 people have been put to death for a crime that they didn't commit. Many of these cases are not further investigated as the government does not wish to admit it’s fault meaning that not only are innocent people are being punished but murders and rapists go free. But what happens when the government is forced to admit its mistakes and releases someone on death row? Well, in 1994 a man named Anthony Graves was charged with the murder of 6 people and served 18 years of his life in jail in Texas, U.S. He was then exonerated in 2010 when he was found to be innocent. For his 18 years in prison he received $1.45 million dollars averaging to just over eighty thousand dollars a year. He states that the government should not only offer money to the wrongfully convicted, but also free healthcare and much-needed counseling (Stephanie Slifer, 2014). Graves said, "That's the biggest disappointment. There was nothing in place to help me make a transition.” “….I walked out from solitary confinement out onto the streets with nothing." (Stephanie Slifer, 2014) Not only was he denied proper means of transition to society the government even failed to wipe the wrongful conviction off his criminal record making it extremely difficult for him to find a job (Stephanie Slifer, 2014). Even ignoring the blatant disregard for Anthony Graves transition into society and his lack of reparations, he missed out on 18 years of his life. He states, “A billion dollars would not buy back those 18 years that I could see my kids growing up.” This clearly shows that not enough care is taken to those sentenced to death whether it be actually making sure they’re guilty or allowing the wrongfully convicted to get proper reparations once released.

Lastly, the other reason the death penalty receives strong support is because of the fact people believes it deters criminals. One of the fundamental purposes of law is to deter people from committing crimes, many people act from self-interest and would not hesitate to harm others if they felt there would be no repercussions. People believe that everyone values their own life above all else, so if the threat of life was at stake than most people would not take the risk of committing the crime. In fact 58% of Canadians surveyed believe that the death penalty would increase the deterrent for would-be murderers (Angus Reid). Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. In the United States, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty, and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in states without the death penalty was as much as 46 percent lower than those with the death penalty (NCCADP, 2016). But people still argue that the death penalty has proven research supporting the fact that helps to deter crime. When in fact, claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research (NCCADP, 2016). People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand usually intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught and thus punishment of death would be no more likely to stop them than life in prison. In all likelihood, most of the people who seek the death penalty to be re-instated do so not because of the reasons above, but because they seek personal vengeance towards a person and have an argument to justify their means. But personal vengeance is not justice, it is the selfish act of people trying to punish others to make themselves feel better without any measure as to see why the person committed the act or how further atrocities can be prevented. If justice truly exists in the Canadian legal system, than there is no justifiable reason as to why the death penalty would be re-instated.
In conclusion, the death penalty should maintain it’s abolished status in Canada as it is an outdated punishment that is not always used correctly, fails to deter criminals and consumes the public's precious time and resources without a justified result.

In order to mediate everyone’s views I believe the current situation should be slightly altered. The first thing that should change is the punishment facing murderers and rapists. Currently, 1st and second degree murder charges are have a minimum sentence for life in prison if charged. But for sexual assault, it ranges from 6 months to a max 25 years in imprisonment. Sexual assault, especially aggravated sexual assault deserves to be punished with harsher sentences. There should be fines as well as to compensate the victim and pay for reparation charges. Victims will usually face severe trauma and will need to have counseling done in order to once again feel comfortable and safe. As people believe that the death penalty is most needed for crimes such as murder and rape, there should be harsher environments in where they go to jail. Now, I not advocating abuse or cruel and unusual punishment but a system where these types of criminals will be further punished in order to appease the public, deter future criminals and help society improve could be used effectively. This system would be heavily focused towards paying back society in terms of jobs and labour that could be performed by inmates in exchange for improved

living situations. It would be system where a convicted felon would start with only the bare necessities in order to survive and continually work towards other amenities and improved living conditions. This would reward the hard working while improving society as a whole. Furthemore, it would put in a system where inmates would put their efforts towards improving their own lives while teaching them the meaning of being a working and functioning member of society. These would be in typically smaller prisons for criminals with long sentences (15+ years) in order to provide a reason for the convicts to want to improve their living conditions. The type of work done could be anything as long as it would be in a safe and secure environment as to provide the utmost security for the public. Furthermore, businesses could hire the prison/government to use this labour force resulting in a determined workforce with no need for promotion or salary increase. All in all, the system would provide a means in which the public could support as it would punish those who have committed atrocities while providing a system in which the taxpayers will not suffer as much for the crimes of others.