Capital Punishment

Immorally murdering people out of avengement because of their crimes simply does not equate to justice. It is exceptionally easy to criticize the government for doing things wrong; however, banning the death penalty in 1976 was a wise choice for society. Essentially, the death penalty contains enough risks and potential errors to view it as an embarrassment to the adversarial judicial system here in Canada. Many supporters of the death penalty rely on the idea of vengeance, rather than on political aspects and fact. Even when they do pay attention to the facts, it is often the same argument: "It is a deterrent." Not only does capital punishment cause unjustifiable risks, it also comes with a very high price tag. There has yet to be a valid argument to warrant it as a deterrent and the rough boundaries it establishes creates a feeling of revenge and spite within society.

Contrary to popular belief no study can verify the theory that the death penalty is a deterrent. Actually, recent studies failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, discovered that there was a steady decrease in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been abolished in Canada. The majority of those who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not cautiously distinguish the differences between an execution and life in prison before they commit the act, and therefore it has no effect. In several cases, murders are committed out of blinding rage and the criminal does not have time to think about the consequences of their actions.

The flaws of capital punishment become too many abruptly after they total one. This is because the basis of the death penalty is focused mainly on human life. There have been countless cases where innocent people have been released from prison after false conviction, even over the run of 20 years. If these people were to be executed, the mistake would be irredeemable by the government. The greater part of those who were put on death row were financially deprived. Roughly 90% were unable to afford a lawyer when they went to trial and were appointed one under legal aid. These lawyers sometimes have little or no incentive to gather all the materials and evidence to adequately support the accused. Without the utmost aid of the lawyers summed into the equation, the defendant can be wrongfully accused, leaving space for heightened risk of error resulting in additional deaths in society. If the defendant has a valid case to offer, they sometimes have little chance to have it properly organized in front of a jury.

Many people also believe that the death penalty saves more money than that of life imprisonment. This is completely false. By law, it is necessary to give all accused equal access to justice, and so many drawn-out court appeals must be put in place at the taxpayer’s expense. On average, it takes nine years to administer an inmate on death row an execution. This means higher investigative costs, more pre-trial costs and an equal number of trial expenses. Also, in numerous cases, those that have been on trial for extensive periods of time for capital punishment appeal and are sentenced to life imprisonment, handing out even more trial costs.

It all begins with revenge. There is no other reason to support the death penalty other than to demolish the root of the cause: the criminal. Many promoters praise and rally that it brings justice, when if truth were told, they are rallying for their feelings of spite to partake in the justice system. For illustration purposes, suppose that a parent of a murdered son did not want the murderer executed.