Capital Punishment

Death,  a morbid topic, but one that is always relevant. But what if the death was not of natural causes? What if a person was deliberately killed by someone? Should this person be allowed to spend twenty years in prison and then get out on parole or is there a better solution to the problem?

Capital Punishment should be reinstated in Canada because it is a valid response to first-degree murder. Most would argue that the death penalty is inhumane. Could we not say that planning and executing a kill on someone is more inhumane? A victim has no right to a fair trial or a lawyer before being killed. A killer has access to the legal system, food, and shelter as they wait for their sentence. Capital punishment could prevent future murders because those convicted of killing someone would not be given the opportunity to kill again. As well, studies have shown that more than 7 people are alive today because people were deterred by the death penalty. The most common fear among people is death. Reinstating the death penalty in Canada could prevent future crimes of this nature because people would be aware of the consequences, dissuading them from killing someone. Laws and records can also change allowing prisoners that would have had life sentences to go free, possibly to killing again. In addition, capital punishment is a way for the government to show the people that it takes murder seriously and will punish anyone that breaks those laws.

Furthermore, capital punishment can also be seen as closure for the victim’s family because they are getting retribution for their loss. For example, take the recent case of the Arizona Shooter, Jared Lee Laughner. He shot nineteen people, of which six of them died. Should he only receive a life in prison for killing six people, one of them a child. Several families were affected by the tragedy; should they have to continue their lives with the reality that the killer could be released from prison sometime in the future? Capital Punishment could alleviate the families’ concerns and also allow the government to uphold the law and to persuade people to follow the law. The death penalty follows the biblical example of an eye for an eye. In Genesis 9:6 it says that, “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man.” Life is sacred and by deliberately killing someone, the murderer has forfeited his right to live.

Capital punishment could also prevent wasted tax dollars. The average yearly cost for a maximum security inmate is $68,156. If you multiply that cost by the number of inmates that are facing life imprisonment for murder you will see that, as future taxpayers, we are giving our money to government so that they can killers fed and sheltered properly. Eliminating those who are convicted of first-degree murder would cut the cost of running prisons by a significant amount, possibly allowing for lower taxes. For those concerned that people could be falsely convicted and killed, the Canadian legal system has safeguards that prevent innocent people from being falsely convicted. Take for example the case of David Millgard who was exonerated new to DNA evidence.

As well, statistics show that the murder rate has gone up since capital punishment was abolished. In 1961, “the murder rate was 1.3 per 100,000 people. Between 1962 and 1976, when capital punishment was still law but not used, the murder rate rose to 2.81 per 100,000”. Since the death penalty was abolished, more crimes have been committed because people were not afraid of the consequences. Bringing back capital punishment could possibly lower the murder rate because people would be more concerned with the consequences and would avoid violent crimes.