This is what I have written so far...I still need to fill up a few more pages...any suggestions??
139 countries around the world see the death penalty as an unjust form of punishment. Since 1976, Canada has been one of those countries. An importance of implementing the death penalty is that it will serve as justice for those who have been victimized by extreme crimes. For every action there is a reaction, for crimes, there are always consequences for committing a crime against another person. In the following pages I will lay out both the negative and positive aspects of reinstating the death penalty in Canada. There are many concerns that Canadian citizens have in regards to reinstating the death penalty, some of which are: the death penalty is immoral, it does not implement civil rights, the possibility of executing an innocent person. In not currently imposing the death penalty, many ruthless criminals receive eligibility for release from prison after 25 years. For those in support of the death penalty they believe that retribution, deterrence and cost of life in prison will help to benefit Canada.
Canada supported the death penalty as early as 1749, up until July 14th, 1976. The last recorded executions held in Canada were on December 11th, 1962 at the Don Jail in Toronto. According to Justice Canada (2009) "there [were approximately] 710 executions in Canada between 1867 to 1962." There have been many executions that have not been recorded, very early records of executions have either been lost or destroyed by fire or flooding. There are a number of different methods in which the death penalty is carried out, current methods include; electrocution, decapitation, shooting (by firing squad),and then the most common being lethal injection. When death by execution was first used, methods included; burning, crucifixion, crushing or dismemberment. Grounds for when the death penalty was first imposed were for when the crimes of murder, treason, espionage or extreme sexual crimes had been committed. The number one offence in which prosecution seeks the death penalty is first-degree murder. While other offences such as sex crimes against children are sought differently throughout the United States, in extreme case of first degree murder the death penalty is continually sought in each state throughout the U.S.
Wrongful convictions have always been a key concern when a criminal is sentenced to death. There is always the possibility that the 'offender has not actually committed the crime that he/she has been put on trial for. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (2012) "since 1970, over 130 people have been released from death row due to evidence of their innocence." Bedau and Radelet's studied (1988) (as sited in Sangiorgio, 2011) capital convictions from 1900 to 1986 and identified 350 cases in which defendants were erroneously convicted of capital crimes, of these 350 convicted crimes, 24 were wrongfully executed. In looking at other recent findings of wrongfully convictions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (2012) as seen in Table 1, as of January 23rd, 2012 there have been 140 exonerations in 26 different states throughout the U.S. There are many factors that lead up to a wrongful conviction some of which are: error of the eyewitness, mishandled evidence, false confessions and government misconduct. For many that believe the death penalty should be abolished around the world, this is one of their most common arguments. That the wrongfully convicted should not have to pay for the mistakes of the police and the mistakes of the government with their lives. Along with the chance of wrongful conviction, abolitionists also fight that the death penalty is immoral, and does not implement Section 7 of The Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Table 1: Exoneration by State 2012
There will continually be views that the death penalty is morally right, and of course not everyone agrees with this concept. Abolitionists feel that the death penalty is ethically wrong and immoral. According to Lilly, (2002, pg. 331) (as cited in Lambert, Baker, & Tucker, 2006) "Abolitionists will, rightly continue to argue that in executing murderers, the state and its citizens lower themselves to the same moral level as the murderers." Many believe that in imposing and using the death penalty we are no better than the criminals themselves, in other words, an eye for an eye does not make it right. Abolitionists also believe that murderers should have to live the rest of their lives remembering the murders that they committed rather than getting the death penalty, which would be the easy way out. Although, not sentencing murderers to death row, which could be morally right, the victims and their families have to live with the fact that these criminals are still alive and have to potential to be released and or escape from prison. As stated in Section 7, of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." (Department of Justice, 2012) this section of the Charter is thought by abolitionist to be very important, in sentencing someone to execution, then the government is automatically taking away this right of the offender. Repeatedly, there is the question as to whether or not murderers loose this right once they have decided to deprive someone of their right to life.
To every negative there is always a positive, with the issue of the death penalty there are plenty of reason that support the use of the death penalty. Many people feel that serial killers, such as Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson deserved to face execution for the many horrifying murders that they have committed. In looking to Deterrence, both specific and general deterrence are seen as ways that would help in the success of an imposed death penalty. Specific Deterrence refers to the notion that specific criminals will not commit murder again. If a murderer happens to be released under mitigating circumstances then there is a very high risk that they will likely commit murder again. If these criminals were kept in prison and/or sentenced to death row first then they would not be given the opportunity to commit a crime again. According to Ellsworth and Gross (1994) (as cited by Lambert, Baker & Tucker, 2006) "Some individuals, especially politicians, claim that executing murderers deters others from committing murder." This statement supports the General Deterrence idea, the notion that in imposing the death penalty, it shows future murderers or current murderers that have not yet been caught that if they do found guilty of these crimes then they will be executed. As stated by Bowers (1988) (as cited in Sanagiorgio 2011) "Deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder for fear of being executed themselves." Although there have been no studies to prove that these statements of deterrence are right, there are also no studies to prove that they are wrong.
There will always be the question of cost when it comes to the death penalty versus life in prison. With my own calculations, I have found that it is notably cheaper to enforce the death penalty rather than having an inmate sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole. As of 2008, the average life expectancy in Canada is 80.4 years (Stats Canada, 2008). If an offender is convicted of murder at the age of 18, and sentenced to life without the chance of parole, assuming that the offender lives to the average life expectancy age, then they will have been in prison for approximately 62.4 years. As of 2009 it costs approximately $109,699 ( Davis, 2011) to keep one male inmate incarcerated for one year. In having this inmate sentenced to life without parole then it would cost approximately $6.8 million to keep the individual in prison for a total of 62.4 years. Currently throughout the United States there are hundreds if not thousands of inmates on death row awaiting execution. In Washington State there are currently 9 death row inmates (Death Penalty Information Centre, 2012). In using my previous calculations, housing one inmate for 62.4 years would cost $6.8 million, if all 9 of these inmates where housed in prison for 62.4 years each, it would roughly cost $61.6 million for all 9 of them to be incarcerated for 62.4 years. According to Dickerson (2011) the estimated cost of the death penalty, including court trials, time in prison and the actual execution is only a cost of $1.7 million. Although this is still relatively expensive it is cheaper than the $6.8 million it would take to house one inmate for 62.4 years.
In looking at all of the facts that I have set out, I strongly feel that the death penalty should be reinstated in every province and territory in Canada. By reinstating the death penalty it will show citizens that the government if finally 'cracking' down on crime and criminals. In seeking the death penalty for criminals like Clifford Olson, it helps the victims and the families of victims to cope. In seeking justice for crimes the families of those who were murdered will not have to worry about whether or not the criminals will ever be released and or escape from prison. Many prisoners that are serving 25 year sentences are eligible for parole after 15 years, this puts fear in the victims and witnesses that have testified against criminals, victims fear that they will be attacked again or even killed if that given offender is released back into the community.
In looking at all of the facts that I have set out, I strongly feel that the death penalty should be reinstated in every province and territory in Canada. By reinstating the death penalty it will show citizens that the government isf finally 'cracking' down on crime and criminals.
Other counterarguments you haven't addressed:
1) 25-year sentences for lesser crimes such as drugs/theft etc. Is it just to impose similar sentences? In the past the death penalty was imposed for many more crimes, such as theft and adultery.
2) Law itself isn't based on statistics or numbers. It's based on truth, logic, and justice. I suppose love for country and its citizens is somewhere in there too. Why do you think that law should be based on statistics?
Other thoughts/questions:
3) Should the victim play more a role in the penalty phase? If no one is there to press for death penalty, then the prisoner doesn't get it. But, if someone is there to ask for it or say how scared they are, then the prisoner gets it?
Case #1 Victim is a middle-aged male no immediate family. There's no one left to ask for the death penalty although he was dismembered? electrocuted? Something horrible.
Case #2 Victim is a girl or boy with parents, brothers and sisters and large extended close-knit family. At sentencing phase, at least 10 people ask for the death penalty and convey how scared they are of the perpetrator.
4) It has been proven that eye witness testimony is the shakiest evidence. People just aren't as good as they think they are. Should convictions based on eye witness testimony be overturned?
5) Should DNA evidence overturn a death penalty ruling? What happens?
Right now, your argumentative paper is not enough argument. The death penalty is a hotbed of philosophical, moral, ethical quandaries. Bring more to the table!
