Capital Punishment, Tommy Douglas Essays

Capital Punishment, Tommy Douglas Essays Capital Punishment, Tommy Douglas Paper Capital Punishment, Tommy Douglas Paper Navi Sahsi 1740495 English 102 Section 143 Colleen Irwin March 14/11 Tommy Douglas’ â€Å"Capital Punishment† focuses on the negatives aspects of the death sentence in Canada. â€Å"I am in favour of the motion to abolish capital punishment and I am also supporting the amendment to put it on a five-year trial basis† (Tommy Douglas 558). Being a person who lives abroad in the public with millions of others, I must say I disagree with Douglas’ argument as to abolishing the punishment, as I feel having capital punishment would indefinitely reduce the murder rate in our country as well as deter criminals from even having slightest thought of committing a murder in the first place. Also, the notwithstanding clause (Section 33) in our legal system which states the government can override a number of our personal freedoms is an obvious bump in our legal system; which apparently has abolished capital punishment although the system still seems to have enough power to have someone sentenced to death even if it is indirect. Capital punishment is a very important tool in our criminal justice system today. There are various reasons it should be reinstated in Canada and remain in effect in places where it still takes place. There is undeniable proof that it is in fact a deterrent in committing crimes. â€Å"How capital punishment affects murder rates can be explained through general deterrence theory, which supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. Nobel laureate Gary S. Beckers seminal 1968 study of the economics of crime assumed that individuals respond to the costs and benefits of committing crime. According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere† (David Muhlhausen 2009). One of the most basic human instincts that we have is self-preservation. This is defined as â€Å"the wish to stay alive and protect yourself from things that might hurt you† (Dictionary. com). Knowing that murdering someone will cost you your own life in return certainly violates the definition of preserving one self. Capital punishment has been used since the beginning of man kind to deter and punish the most heinous crimes committed by some of the most dangerous and hardened criminals. All countries around the world, view capital punishment as a way to give criminals what they deserve and to rid the world of the people who have the distorted mental state of mind to murder. People who protest and argue the laws on capital punishment don’t realize that these ruthless criminals being put to death would kill the very same people protesting to keep them alive in an instant without hesitation. Perhaps solitary confinement over long periods of time instead of death may be a reasonable alternative but definitely would not make as much an impact as the penalty of death on people who commit these horrid crimes all around the world. â€Å"Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. †(Muhlhausen 2009). At the least, sentancing should be conditional, meaning I agree with Tommy Douglas’ statement in the fact that there should be a 5 year trial if needed, but in addition, to avoid wrongful convictions, a person may only be sentenced to death if a certain amount of physical evidence is found against him, instead of taking the word of witnesses and perhaps loved ones of the deceased who obviously would prefer the suspect be killed, as this has proven faulty in the past. Most wrongful convictions, according to one analysis, result from mistakes by witnesses or witness perjury, the negligence of prosecutors, or errors in forensic science. Canada has seen too many innocents condemned to hanging in the past and life imprisonment in the present -for capital punishment to make a comeback in the twenty-first century† (Ray Argyle 2010). The fact that so many people had been wrongfully convicted before the abolishment of the law shows that there were obviously flaws in past legal s ystem in terms of evidence and unveiling of the truth. The last point I want to make is about the not withstanding clause which we have in Canada. This law allows government to override our rights from section 1-15 in the charter. These include our personal freedoms as well as the rights to avoid cruel and unusual punishments by the government. The point being, in special cases where someone commits a serious offence in the United States, although he may be arrested in Canada, he can be intentionally sent to America to be tried. In August 2003, it heard the case of Roger Judge, a man who had escaped from prison and, in June of that year, had fled to Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec. Judge had been convicted of two counts of first degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime. Here the Canadian government had agreed to extradition without first seeking assurances that he would not receive the death penalty (Andrew Thompson). † So although the government has abolished the law it is not completely out of reach to have one killed indirectly if necessary Support for mandatory death falls of rapidly as the seriousness of the murder diminishes under law; only 13% want mandatory execution when a citizen is intentionally killed(non-capital murder) where as only 4% see a passionate killing(2nd degree) as deserving a death sentence† (David Chandler 45). Perhaps the large difference in opinion among the general public is why the law has simply been abolished. After all, abolishing it seems was the easy way out, even though some considered capital punishment was the easy way out, as simply killing a killer seemed the fastest and most logical thing to do. Or perhaps it is because a death sentence results in 2-3 times more money spent by tax payers due to legal fees as a death row convict is on average in a continues legal battle for 15-20 years. â€Å"Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers (Joe Messerli 2010). † Whether it’s to do with the decrease/increase murder rate, the notwithstanding clause, or the money from tax payers it requires, capital punishment seems to be illogical in the eyes of the majority of the public in Canada so it has been abolished, but perhaps one day we will realize the benefits of it. After all the golden rule in many schools and universities of the civilized world is â€Å"Treat others how you want to be treated,† and killing others is simply something criminals need to realize is not tolerable and the only way to force them into having empathy for others is simply by the death of their fellow murderers. Essays: Douglas, Tommy. â€Å"Capital Punishment. † Steps to Writing Well with Additional Readings: Classic and Contemporary Reading Supplement. Eds. Jean Wyrick and Sarika P. Bose. Toronto: Nelson (2005): 558-62 Online Articles: Argyle, Ray. â€Å"Reasonable Doubts. Canada’s History; Vol. 90 (2010/11): 34-39 Muhlhausen, David B. The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished. Crime and Criminals. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. Messerli, Joe. â€Å" balancedpolitics. org/death_penalty. html† Scholarly Sources: Chandler, David. â€Å"Capital Punishment in Canada. † The Carlton Library. Eds. Michael Gnarowski. Toronto: McClelland and Stewert Ltd (1976) Thompson, Andrew S. â€Å"Uneasy Abolitionists: Canada, the Death Penalty, and the Importance of International Norms (1962-2005). †