Essay, Research Paper
Delegate Democracy
The issue of capital punishment cannot simply be summed up in a few paragraphs, it is an
topic of great debate, over both the issue of deterrence and of conscience. There are few matters
which stir such heated debate, there are both abolitionists and retentionists, there are also those in
the middle, the people who can discern legitimacy from each group. Each group has a set of
beliefs which do apply to this matter, perhaps some groups subscribe to the old testament and its
injunction ? an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ? ( The law of Moses, The Old Testament ), or
possibly some simply view capital punishment as legalized homicide, whatever the case may be
one must put aside personal beliefs and attempt to comprehend the facts and statistics of this issue
before coming to a decision.
Capital punishment in Canada effectively ended on December 10, 1962 with the double
hanging of Arthur Lucas and Ronald Turpin in the Don Jail in Toronto ( Anderson, 78-79 ). After
these executions the government began to commute all death sentences to life sentences. Then in
1976 a bill was introduced by the liberal government, abolishing the death penalty which passed
by a narrow margin of 130 to 124 ( Chandler, 199). This legislation saw murder divided into
either first or second degree homicide, similar to the method our current day legal system uses as
a definition. Later in the 1980?s the Canadian public began to feel that perhaps once again the
death penalty should be a part of the legal system. There were several reasons that the Canadian
public felt this way, one such reason was the publics perception that the vote in 1976 was not a
true ?free vote?, secondly 1984 saw a dramatic increase in the murder of police officers, which
doubled from the previous year. All of these concerns and events culminated into another vote in
the House of Commons, this vote took place on June 30, 1987 and was a motion to accept in
principle the restoration of the death penalty, this motion was defeated and consequently
maintained the norm of abolition in Canada. (McDonald, 2). This vote questioned the delegate
democracy system, however when one takes into account the fact that public opinion is influenced
greatly by media and emotion it becomes clear that perhaps the Members of Parliament did not
fall victim to this scenario but rather to the demands of special interest groups. This surely
illustrates the fact that Government at that time did indeed scorn the delegate democracy system
in Canada, and in doing this illustrated the value that they put into the opinion of their
constituents.
One question that arises when attempting to come to a resolution on capital punishment is
that of deterrence, does the death penalty play a role in the decrease of murder? Or does it have
no impact whatsoever. The retentionists will argue that the fear of death will prevent murders
from committing their crimes due to the fact that they have the knowledge that they will be
executed if the do commit the act. However as abolitionist argue most murders are carried out
during temporary lapses in judgment, they are ?crimes of passion? therefore the threat of death
will have no impact whatsoever on their judgment( McDonald, 52 ). When listening to this
argument it makes one think that if a person is in such a state then no punishment will control
their actions, however would the fear of execution not stop the small percentage of murderers that
are in a cognizant state when they commit their deed? It would seem clear that the answer is yes.
And there are indeed studies no reiterate this, as shown in the 1970’s when Prof. Isaac Ehrlich
found out through his research that capital punishment did deter (Van Den Haag, 210).
Another sensitive item that tends to rear itself would be the fear of wrongful death, or
executing the wrong person. This is a matter of great importance, obviously society does not
want to be guilty of putting an innocent person to death. It is a fact that innocent people have lost
their lives due to wrongful convictions, however the number is relatively small, only two people
have been proved innocent after their execution in the United States. These wrongful deaths
occurred in 1918 and 1949 (Internet 110599). However legal systems have evolved greatly in
the second half of the century and due to a broader appellate process the chances of this
happening in today?s society are very slim. The Canadian legal system provides adequate
safeguards to prevent this, defendants are given the right to free council, they have the right to
appeal, and the right to due process as outlined in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. For one to say that by reinsating capital punishment in Canada we run a grave risk
of putting an innocent man to death, this can be understood as this person having a serious lack of
faith in our justice system. The addition of capital punishment into our system would require no
major overhaul of the justice system, simply another definition of murder specifying exactly what
types of crimes would be tried as capital punishment case.
Fair and humane treatment is yet another issue that is at the forefront of the debate on
capital punishment, the question remains, ?is capital punishment a cruel and inhumane form of
punishment?? The answer to this question is no, the death penalty is not a cruel and unusual form
of punishment, it is a quick and concise form of punishment. To say that a quick and painless
d
complete farce, living conditions in most prisons are overcrowded and deplorable. The death
penalty reduces their term therefore leaving room for non life sentence prisoners and minimizes
the dangers to inmates and staff that come with overcrowding. The methods of execution in
today?s society are much improved over the gallows that were used in Canadas past. Where as
hanging was done through rough estimates and guessing which would sometimes result in
strangulation or even decapitation (Anderson 25), today?s methods are now a science in the case
of lethal injection, or have guaranteed results such as the electric chair.( Internet, 11/05/99 )
Another question arises, that of victims rights, when are prisoner is sentenced to life in prison the
public is not guaranteed that he will have no chance of parole or that of escape . ?We think that
some criminals must be made to pay for their crimes with their lives, and we think that we, the
survivors of the world they violated, may legitimately extract that payment because we, too, are
their victims” ( Bedau 317).
Another subject that needs to be addressed is that of rehabilitation and cost , some tend to
believe that any person, no matter how heinous the acts they have committed, can be rehabilitated,
be it through counseling or religion.( McDonald, 57) To say that a person like Clifford Olsen or
Paul Benardo can be rehabilitated is a complete sham, as much as some would rather not admit
we do have people in our society that cannot be helped. What happens to those who cannot be
rehabilitated? With those who acknowledge the fact that they have no remorse and would kill
again if given the opportunity? The answer is dangerous offender status, when this occurs the
suspect is placed in solitary confinement, however in these modern times in is considered unfair to
place a person in a position where they will have no mental stimulation. This leads to the taxpayer
barring the burden of supplying the inmate with items such as televisions and computers, in
addition to paying the costs involved with keeping an inmate in jail for life. In the United states for
example the average time a death row prisoner has to spend in jail until the death sentence is
carried out is about nine years and six months ( BJS 12-92). Is it not more economically sensible
to only have the public pay for nine years of jail time, rather then an entire lifetime?
Perhaps an issue of importance that has been constantly omitted by abolitionists is that of
victims rights, it would seem that some groups are more concerned with the rights of the criminals
than those of the victims. Is it right to provide convicted murderers with electronics and other
superficial items while often time the victims families become hard pressed to pay their own bills?
Our country needs to put a greater emphasis on the victims of crime, this is were capital
punishment will fill the void. Why should a person who has had a member of their family killed at
the hands of a criminal be forced to pay this persons prison stay through their taxes? If capital
punishment were to be reinstated it would put an end to this travesty. When a murderer is
sentenced to life imprisonment it does not guarantee they will never be able to kill again,
survivors and people close to the victim often have grave fear that the convict will break out and
seek revenge, by executing murderers it will allow the victims to live with a sense of security and
allow then to claim back their lives, which were indeed taken away. Perhaps this argument is best
illustrated by referring to the definition of deterrence, ?Executing a person takes away the
capacity of and forcibly prevents recurrence of violence. Deterrence is the act or process of
discouraging and preventing an action from occurring? (Webster, 307)
It is very difficult to come to a firm resolve in the topic of capital punishment, there
several different view points on the subject and all posses convincing arguments. However it is
imperative that one takes into account all of the issues involved, when one does this the answer
begins to become clear. Capital punishment is cost effective, simply put it is less expensive to pay
for nine years of jail time compared to sixty. Secondly capital punishment puts the rights back
into the hands of the victims, exactly where they belong, and something that is long overdue in
our system. In our society we do have people who are unsalvageable, those who will kill again if
given the opportunity, why should the public and prison employees be put in constant risk,
through capital punishment we can eliminate these blights on society. The people of this country
spoke however the politicians refused to listen, perhaps it is time for this matter to once again be
brought to the forefront of Canadian politics.
Bibliography
Anderson, Frank W. ? A Concise History of Capital Punishment in Canada?
Frank W. Anderson. 1973
Bedau, Hugo Adam. ?The Case Against The Death Penalty?
Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 1992.
Chandler, David B. ? Capital Punishment in Canada?
McClelland and Stewart ltd. 1976
Death Penalty Discussion, November 5, 1999 Search on Yahoo under “Execution
”
McDonald, Eleanor ?Coalition Against the Return of the Death penalty?
December, 1987
Van den Haag, Ernest. ?Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful
Question? Basic Books, Inc.: ,1975.