Capital Punishment in Canada Essay

Argumentative Essay on Capital Punishment in Australia Capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane and should not be re-introduced into Australia. Although capital punishment has been abolished, the debate on this topic has never abated. When a particularly heinous crime is committed, this debate arouses strong passions on both sides. Many who advocate the abolition of capital punishment consider the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, while those who favor of punishment by death see it as a form of just retribution for the gravest of crimes.

To begin with, Section 7 of the Legal Rights guarantees Canadian citizens the right to live. Bringing back the death penalty would be going against that entirely. Canadians are supposed to be protected and all have a right to liberty and security. The right to security is giving Canadians the right to be free of danger and threat of any kind. The right to liberty gives citizens the right to be free within society and do as they please. If the death penalty was brought back, it would be going against this section of the Charter. Also, Section 12 gives all Canadians the right to be protected from any cruel or odd punishment. The death penalty is nothing if not unusual and cruel. The Government is not allowed to treat or punish individuals in an excessively harsh manner. Capital punishment being restored is totally wrong. It would be going against many sections of the Charter and cause many to question the amount of freedom and security Canada provides. The Legal Rights section of the Charter gives citizens protection, freedom, and life, which is something they cannot have if the death penalty is brought

Capital Punishment is a sensitive topic that seems to constantly generate controversy amongst many individuals. To give a little background, capital punishment involves executing a person deemed guilty of a severe crime. Various countries, including America, accept the use of this method. However, other countries such as Canada are strictly against the act due to many reasons. Although some argue that they are the best form of punishment, life imprisonment is the better alternative. It is more humane, improves the financial and social state of the country, and finally is safer.

Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in

Correspondingly, it is common knowledge that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly states that “all Canadians have the right to live...” Yet the concept of the death penalty seems to be the pardoned exception. Should the death penalty be reinstated it would become immensely hypocritical for the government to continue preaching that life is important when they would be the ones taking it away. It is clear one cannot cure murder with more murder so does it matter by whom the killing is done? By taking a human life the government is lessening the value of life. One might dismiss this as the devaluation of a murderer could be seen as a just compromise, but the government is viewed as a higher power, the one in control. When the

Many Americans claim that capital punishment is a cruel and unusual punishment and goes against a persons constitutional rights. On the other hand, many Americans support it and claim it is against ther constitutional right not to carry out the death penalty. How are we to know what is right? In all honesty, facts, papers, journals, etc. can not decide how I am truly going to feel about a subject that is very much a macro-argument. None the less, here Americans sit, letting “their” opinion being primarily based off of claims and subclaims made by one side or the other. I guess that is what we will do here. I believe that if we are to look at papers, we might as well look at

As Ghandi once said, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty”. Canada is a society based around democracy; if the government grants themselves the absolute power to end a person’s life with a single sentence, there are bound to be negative repercussions. It is human nature to makes mistakes, but it is a virtue to learn from them. Instead of resulting to the death penalty as a punishment for committing a serious crime, society should have faith in that person’s ability to change, improve, and be rehabilitated. Moreover, the death penalty is an ineffective way to punish criminals when it comes to serious crimes. If anything, it is an escape for those who have no remorse for their actions. There is no reason to end the life of a human being, no matter how malevolent they are, as it does not benefit society in any way, shape, or form. One could argue that the offender would no longer be able to harm others, but that same result could come from a prison sentence. Furthermore, the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are fundamental human rights that are not subject to a select group of people, but all of humanity. Capital punishment, no matter the reason, is essentially still murder, as the life of another human is being taken. Limitations must be set in order to separate humanity from the criminals it harbors. Society

As of 2008, fifty-eight, about one-third of the world’s countries, favor the death penalty, including the United States (Death Penalty Information Center). Currently, thirty-five out of the fifty states, including California, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas and even Washington, have legalized capital punishment (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). As of January 1st, 2010, 3291 inmates were awaiting their punishment on death row (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). California holds most of them, with 697, followed by Florida with 398 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). The 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed and stated the South has the highest murder rate of all areas of the country and is therefore directly related to being responsible for over 80% of all executions. Also, consistent with previous reports, the Northeast has the lowest homicide rate of the nation and is only responsible with a small 1% of execution (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). Now, in regards to Canada, the death penalty is a sentencing that the country does not justify. However, it has not always been this way. It wasn’t until 1976 that the death penalty was removed from the Canadian Criminal Act, where it was then replaced with the mandatory life sentencing without the chance of parole for the first twenty-five years. This was true for all first-degree murders (Munroe, 2010). Following that date, in 1998 capital punishment was removed from the

The death penalty also known as capital punishment “is a government sanctioned punishment whereby a person is put to death for a crime.” (Kronenwetter 2001) The death penalty has been and continues to be a topic of debate in Canada and America. In Canada it was formally abolished but in America the death penalty still stands in some states. First degree murder, treason, and espionage are some of the crimes punishable by death in the U.S. Many believe that capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada and others are against it. Although there is controversy about bringing capital punishment back the House of Commons will not allow it. This essay will examine this topic by examining the arguments in favour of the death penalty

“The total number of death penalties between 1867 and 1971 is 1481. The total number of executions is 710, 697 men and 13 women” (February 10, 1956). So many men and women died, some innocent, some guilty. However no crime is big or bad enough that it should take someone’s life away. Who are they to judge whether or not we should keep our lives, they were not the ones who gave it to us. And in the situation that they do kill an innocent person, they should die as well for murder, like the law states. Finally we do not have to live like this, “The argument against the death penalty eventually won Canadians over and the practice was abolished in 1976. Sadly this was after Wilbert Coffin” (February 10, 1956). After 104 years of executions and wrongfully committed victims who lost their lives for a crime they never committed, finally the eyes of society have been opened and people realized this practice was

Canadian justice system in its views on capital punishment. Two men, Arthur Lucas, and Ronald

Despite this on going argument, outlawing capital punishment in America could create many unhappy citizens, and cause a division in the U.S. government. By enforcing the death penalty prevention in crime could occur. If death is the punishment for murder then criminals are not gaining from their crimes, but receiving the punishment they have inflicted on others. The crime rate is lower in the states that do not invoke capital punishment, but as Walter Burns stated “the number of murders tend to rise with the crime rate in general - and not only in America,” (105). Capital punishment is maintained to hopefully show criminals that when they kill they will eventually meet the same fate. By enforcing the death penalty the government could be trying to scare criminals from their crimes, and in some cases it has worked. When the death penalty was restored in Kansas, for example, the homicide rate dropped considerably (Bedau 122). According to research done by Bedau the crime rate continued to sore between 1960-1969 when capital punishment was rarely being used in most states (Bedau 127).

Capital punishment, within the Canadian context, has enjoyed a long and controversial history. First enacted as a punishment for the act of murder, its use and subsequent abolition have been the source of significant legislative debates that have contributed to a shift in penal philosophy. Moving away from the principle of lex talionis, the Canadian government—between 1957 and 1967—began to commute death sentences across the nation. This desire to limit the use of capital punishment would finally culminate in its removal form legislation in 1976.

While criminals must be punished for their criminal actions, “legalized murder”, as author Coretta Scott King put it, is immoral. The death penalty is legalizing the very thing that many on death row are charged for, murder. There is a multitude of lawful alternatives, to the death penalty, of reestablishing a better reputation for the criminals. The Constitution has no true right to allow such a felonious form of rehabilitation.

Should one person have the right to end another human's life? It is a question most people have the answer for when it comes to capital punishment. Capital punishment is known to some people one of the cruelest punishment to humanity. Some people believe giving a person the death penalty doe's not solve anything. While other's believe it is payback to the criminal for the crime they have committed. There have been 13,000 people executed since the colonial times, among 1900 and 1985 there were 139 innocent people sentence to death only 23 were executed. In 1967 lack of support and legal challenges cut the execution rate to zero bringing the practice to a complete end by 1972. Although the supreme court authorized its resumption in 1976