Capital punishment has generated substantial controversy as time passes. Although a minority of Americans perceive it as morally wrong, there are those who contend that Canada’s decision to not enforce the death penalty on offenders showcases leniency towards criminals.
Canada argues that the United States is excessively strict in its treatment of criminals by using the death penalty as a means of execution. The issue of whether murderers should be executed or given life sentences remains open to interpretation. However, this essay has the potential to change your perspective on the death penalty if you currently support it. Most Canadians strongly believe that Canada should never bring back capital punishment. In contrast, the United States employs capital punishment for more serious offenders, such as murderers and rapists. Although most prisoners are indeed guilty, there have been rare cases where an innocent person has been mistakenly executed through capital punishment.
Wrongful accusation and execution of innocent individuals for crimes they did not commit should never happen, although it is rare. Such cases have been seen in both the United States and Canada since the 1900s, where wrong people have been falsely accused of crimes. In the United States alone, there have been at least four executions of innocent individuals. It is unfortunate that every year, four innocent lives are lost due to capital punishment caused by errors made by the State.
In 1990, Sabrina Butler was convicted of murdering her baby in Mississippi and sentenced to death. However, two years later, she was retried and found innocent, thus avoiding execution. Similarly, in Virginia in 1992, Rodger Keith Coleman was executed despite evidence indicating another individual as the actual perpetrator.
If Canada had the death penalty, innocent individuals would face capital punishment for crimes they did not commit. The real murderer evaded justice while an innocent man was executed for a crime he did not do. One such case is that of Steven Truscott, who would have been executed if Canada still enforced the death penalty. In 1959, when Canada still practiced capital punishment, Steven, then only 14 years old, received a hanging sentence for the murder of his classmate Lynn Harper.
After four decades, Canadian courts are now reconsidering their decision to wrongly convict an innocent man and sentence him to death, which played a significant role in the country’s eventual abolition of capital punishment. This individual, who was unjustly placed on death row and became Canada’s youngest inmate at the time, suffered through years of imprisonment for a crime he did not commit.
Canada’s abolition of the death penalty has saved Truscott and many others from execution. This act is viewed as unjust to punish innocent people for crimes they did not commit. Conversely, the United States maintains that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to potential criminals.
According to Thorsten Sellin, capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. Sellin’s research reveals a lack of evidence supporting the idea that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in deterring crime and preventing individuals from committing offenses. Surprisingly, crime rates have increased instead of decreasing, which goes against expectations. Additionally, there is no significant difference in homicide rates between states that have the death penalty and those that do not.
If the fear of being imprisoned does not deter murderers, then the fear of facing death row will not either. Additionally, scientific research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective than other punishments in discouraging crime. A 1988 study by the United Nations found no evidence supporting the idea that capital punishment deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment does. Therefore, for a criminal to proceed with committing a crime, they must not have been deterred by the threat of capital punishment.
Despite the existence of capital punishment, many murderers act impulsively and do not consider the possible consequences they may face, including death. However, imprisonment helps them control their impulsive behavior and understand the illegality of their actions. Whether or not capital punishment is implemented, it is unlikely to have an impact on homicide rates. It should be recognized that a considerable number of individuals in the United States perceive the death penalty as a means of seeking vengeance.
Unfortunately, 64% of Americans support the death penalty, while 25% oppose it and 11% are unsure.
Conversely, Canadians consider the death penalty to be a type of cruel and unusual punishment, viewing it as another form of violence employed to address problems. In Section 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is an explicit statement that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and personal security. Consequently, Canada cannot sanction the use of the death penalty since doing so would contradict the principles outlined in the charter.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 12, prohibits the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment is regarded as cruel due to its association with past practices like slavery and other inhumane methods. These torturous techniques are reminiscent of a time that has no place in Canada’s advanced society. Furthermore, this form of punishment is deemed unusual since it is only prevalent in a small number of countries such as the United States.
The use of the death penalty is seen as morally unacceptable since no rational person would endorse the act of killing someone, regardless of the situation. When the State executes a convicted murderer, they share equal responsibility for their actions. Instead of resorting to capital punishment, individuals who commit crimes should receive appropriate sentences.
The United States argues that executing inmates is less expensive than imprisoning them for 30-40 years. Nevertheless, a society that values life should abstain from ending it. Nonetheless, this financially efficient measure is only feasible temporarily.
Studies have shown that the death penalty leads to increased expenses in the long run. In North Carolina, research reveals that the complete process of a murder case adds an extra $163,000 in comparison to incarcerating the convict for 20 years. Similarly, in Maryland, studies indicate that cases without death penalty sentences from 1979 to 1984 were 42% cheaper than cases resulting in death sentences. Furthermore, Florida has determined that each execution costs around $3.
According to The Palm Beach Post Florida, the cost of a single execution is $24 million in Florida, which is six times more expensive than a lifetime prison sentence. In Colorado, five death penalty cases consumed $2.5 million and resulted in just one death penalty conviction.
When comparing the cost of executions to life sentences, it is clear that the former has long-term implications. It is important to recognize the effect on executioners and their personal involvement in ending lives. The UK’s Times newspaper shared an article that highlighted Jim Willett’s story as an executioner, who carried out 89 executions in Texas throughout his career.
According to Willett, serving as a senior warden at the Texas prison in April 1998 was incredibly emotionally draining. He described the facility as the busiest death house in America and shared that he broke the record for executing the highest number of prisoners compared to any other state. Willett revealed that he frequently carried out two to three executions per week.
At 51 years old, Willett has retired and experiences a profound sense of relief. He confesses to becoming tired of witnessing the deaths of individuals. What is peculiar is that Willett never aspired to be an executioner; nevertheless, his conviction that capital punishment was unjust intensified with each execution. Even now, Willett still suffers over the tasks he had to perform in the name of justice.
Willet asserts his belief that some of the men he executed were not innocent, expressing confidence in this claim. He also contends that the death penalty fails to deter crime and provide solace to victims’ families. Moreover, Willett proposes that if judges and jurors were tasked with implementing executions, the death penalty would cease to exist. Although facing internal conflicts, Willett acknowledges that fulfilling his duty became less challenging as time went on.
“There was a noticeable difference between the initial and final stages, but it never reached a point that I would describe as effortless,” says Willett as he recounts his experience with felons during their last moments alive. He explains that first, they administer sodium thiopental, a sedative medication; then they proceed with pancuronium bromide, a substance that causes lung collapse; finally, potassium chloride is injected to stop the heart. In their final moments, some inmates have reported being able to taste these chemicals in their mouths.”
According to Willet, the noise made by inmates as their lungs collapsed is a sound that he still hears today and it is the most terrible sound. He admits feeling proud of always fulfilling his duties adequately, but he has become increasingly troubled by capital punishment. This is because he never used to reflect on it, but now he constantly does. Willett firmly believes that if judges and jurors had to carry out executions themselves, the number of executions would decrease.
When asked about innocent men being executed, Willett acknowledged the possibility and stated that he was not aware of any cases. However, he emphasized that no criminal justice system can be perfect due to human involvement. According to Willett, most men undergo significant changes during their time in prison. He also expressed doubts about the notion that the death of a criminal provides closure for the victims, as it often creates additional victims within the convict’s family. Willett admitted to grappling with these issues.
Even though criminals who have committed murder may not show remorse, it is clear that their death affects numerous individuals. Canada needs to recognize the broad repercussions of the death penalty. Ultimately, this type of punishment perpetuates a cycle of violence, does not effectively discourage serious crimes, incurs higher costs than life imprisonment, and leads to the untimely deaths of innocent people.
It is not advisable to reintroduce the death penalty in Canada due to its numerous disadvantages and associated risks.
