Death Penalty in Canada

Should Canada reinstate the death penalty for planned and premeditated murder What is your position and why
Why are people punished for their crimes? What is the driving idea behind punitive sentencing in criminal justice? Is life behind bars somehow to be considered more humane of a sentence for a person who commits premeditated murder? Or is knowing that one will never again have his freedom a worse punishment than death? Obviously these are all subjective questions and people will have different views on the matter, so it is important to define one’s own approach to the question. If one is talking about preferences and whether it is better to give up one’s life than to live the rest of one’s days in prison, one might go either way. But if one is talking about the issue of capital punishment from an ethical point of view, it is an approach can lead to a more objective response. One can look at the matter from the various ethical standpoints: deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. One can also look at the ethical characteristics of the criminal justice system in Canada as it is today and compare it to the ethical ideals behind the big three ethical points of view. This paper will do just that and show that the death penalty in Canada should be reinstated for premeditated murder on the principle of justice.
Kronenwetter points out that in virtually every society throughout history “all punishment is based on the same simple proposition: There must be a penalty for wrongdoing” (1). The social basis for this proposition is that if there are now punitive consequences for wrongdoing people will not respect the righteous path and will not make an effort to go by the straight and narrow way. Accepting the universal idea that crime must be penalized, the question becomes: What sort of punishment should be doled out for crime? The concept of an “eye for an eye” punishment is an ancient one that stretches back thousands of years. In the case of premeditated murder, therefore, one might well ask whether the forfeit of one’s own life for the deliberate killing of another is fair. To answer that question, one must look at the ethical perspectives that help people to determine the moral course.
The oldest of the big three ethical perspectives is that of virtue ethics, which was put forward by Aristotle. The main idea behind virtue ethics is that what is moral is that which helps to develop the character (Hursthouse). The cultivation of virtue, i.e., good habits, is posited as the main objective of a good life and a moral action is that which helps one to achieve the goal of virtue. Can it be said that the death penalty might assist one in obtaining virtue? It is possible that this could be the case. For instance, if one is deterred from unleashing one’s violent rage on another because one knows he might have to die if he is caught and convicted the deterrent aspect of the death penalty could be enough to prevent said individual from nursing thoughts of violent anger towards others. On the other hand if there are no such deterrents one might more readily harbor these thoughts and give in to violence. Then again, how does taking the life of the defendant help him towards virtue? The answer here is that it might provide him with an opportunity to repent of his crime and right himself with God before he dies. However, this is a personal matter and not every person convicted of killing another is going to repent. Truman Capote shows in his book In Cold Blood that the killers of a family were not the same in their attitudes towards their approaching death following their conviction in court for premeditated murder. Even the New Testament shows that not all are the same and the example of the Good Thief and the Bad Thief serve to bear out the emphasis of this point.
From a virtue ethics standpoint, therefore, there is no obvious answer to the question. Some might suggest that capital punishment for premeditated murder is helpful because it deters planned murder and if one does murder another it can spur repentance and the righting of one’s soul before death. Others can point to the unrepentant thief and argue that it is not helpful at all. It is fit then to look at other ethical points of view to judge the matter. In the film Dead Man Walking, directed by Tim Robbins, the murderer who is sentenced for death ultimately comes to terms with what he has done through the intercession of a nun, who helps to guide him on the path to redemption. The condemned speaks to the parents whose children he killed and tells them that he hopes his death will give them peace. The fact is that his death does not give them peace and that peace is only found in prayer and in forgiveness as the film shows in the end—but the question remains: does the execution of justice and the killing of the killer pave the way for that moment of prayer and ultimate forgiveness? In other words, without that carrying out of justice would it even be possible to forgive? The ethical system of virtue ethics does not provide an easy way to answer these personal questions.
From the deontological perspective, one can ask what one’s duty is to determine whether an action is moral (Holmes). This perspective allows one to assess the duty of the study vis-à-vis the premeditated killing of a person. What duty does the state have in punishing the killer who plans and carries out the killing of another person? Some form of punishment is required, but deontology does not exactly say what form that punishment should take. Like the system of virtue ethics, it is better fit for providing a basic approach to life but the complicated questions can turn on a personal whim and lead to differences of opinion. Thus, deontology is not any more help at answering this question than virtue ethics.
Finally, there is utilitarianism, which posits that the moral action is that which produces the greatest common good. Here one can ask whether capital punishment has any utility in ensuring the greatest common good. What would the common good of capital punishment be? One benefit would be that it ensures eye for an eye justice and ensures that people who commit murder are punished with their lives. It could give the effect of justice and produce in the public the sense that if one dares to commit a crime of this nature one better be ready to give up his own life. It lends a seriousness to the affair that the concept of life in prison or even just a few years in prison does not lend. It therefore has utility as a deterrent. But does it have utility in any other way? Does capital punishment help society to be better in terms of knowing that it has an ethical criminal justice system?
The problem with asking that question is that it supposes that criminal justice systems are without corruption. The reality is that while systems as defined on paper are one thing in practice they are quite another. The reason for this is that people fall prey to Ethical Egoism, which is a fourth and common ethical perspective that is often found in modern life. Ethical Egoism is the idea that the ends justify the means. So in this case if one is a prosecutor and wants to make a name for himself by convicting a suspect in a killing and getting him sentenced to death, one should do so regardless of the possibility that the man might actually be innocent. If the innocent man is unable to defend himself then he deserves to die—such might be the thought of an ethical egoist (Holmes). In criminal justice it is not unlikely that such prosecutors are to be found because human nature is what it is and people tend to justify their own actions because it benefits themselves in some way. The fact that this could occur should raise alarm for those concerned with justice, however. If it is possible that an innocent man might be condemned to death does it not warrant that the practice should be abolished completely? Those who argue against the death penalty would certainly so say. The argument of those who oppose capital punishment is simply that it is cruel and inhumane and that in the long run it does not act as a suitable deterrent because obviously people still kill and kill deliberately.
Still, even if there are corrupt actors in the system it does not mean that the practice of capital punishment is in and of itself a bad thing. It might be that it is necessary to have it for the sake of embedding the principle of justice in society. What kind of society would it be were there no sense of justice among the people, if one believed he could kill another deliberately and face no real punishment? People’s sense of justice would become corrupted. Utilitarianism thus serves as the best justification for restoring the death penalty in Canada: capital punishment has utility as an emblem of justice.
Works Cited
Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. NY: Vintage, 1994.
Holmes, A. Ethics: Approaching moral decisions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2007.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Kronenwetter, M. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. CA: ABC-
CLIO, 2001.
Robbins, Tim, dir. Dead Man Walking. Gramercy Pictures, 1995. Film.
Annotated Bibliography
Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. NY: Vintage, 1994.
This book focuses on the killing of four people at a Midwest farm. The killers are discussed from the standpoint of various perspectives, including Rev. Post, who sympathizes with one of the accused because the latter is interested in coming to Jesus before his death. Another perspective, however, is that the accused murdered a family in cold blood and are therefore not worth sympathizing with. The book is an objective and non-biased report on the Midwest murders that shocked a nation and the aftermath of how to deal with the killers.
The article is relevant to the research focus because it gets to the heart of a real-life murder situation and shows how capital punishment is not a simple problem or solution as there are many facets of the discussion to consider—such as justice and redemption. The book is powerfully written and focuses simply on telling what happened and who said what. It is not sentimental or rhetorical but rather journalistic and objective. The author does not claim to make a point or settle the matter but rather only to explain what the situation is in all of its complexity. The book does a good job of showing both sides of the argument regarding capital punishment but it allows the reader to make up his own mind on the matter and does not ever force a point of view or promote a particular perspective. It is fair, honest, and soul-searching.
Holmes, A. Ethics: Approaching moral decisions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2007.
This book is an excellent work on ethics and the various ethical systems that people use or have used throughout their lives in the past centuries. It looks at the history of ethical systems, from the idea of virtue ethics on down to ethical egoism. It discusses the difference between universalism and relativism, and gives a good demonstration of how objective and subjective differences in perspective can impact one’s approach to morality. The book provides a good, solid overview without getting lost in the details but also without skimping on important distinctions that make a genuine difference in how one looks at ethics.
The book is relevant to this research because it helps to explain how different people interpret morality differently. Thus, it explains how someone might view one action as moral and how another might not because of the ethical framework that is being used. The utilization of capital punishment can therefore be better understood from an ethical perspective by reading this book and getting a good sense of the various common ethical frameworks that people use when approaching complicated matters such as this one. To have a good idea of the various ethical twists and turns that could come up when dealing with capital punishment, this book can help by giving a rundown of how ethical systems have developed and why ethical egoism is so popular today.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
This article explains the basic concepts of virtue ethics. It looks at how both the East and the West have developed their own systems of virtue ethics. In the West, virtue ethics started with Plato and Aristotle, and in the East the system of virtue ethics started with Confucius. At the heart of the system of virtue ethics is the idea that virtue is excellence of character and the pursuit of excellence of character is what can be considered moral. Thus the measure for morality is whether it benefits or advances the development of one’s character.
This article is relevant to the topic because it provides an in-depth view of one of the major ethical systems in the world and one of the oldest ethical systems to boot. This article can help one to see how having capital punishment might be good for developing the character of society in terms of allowing it to operate as a deterrent that pushes people away from plotting and violence and instead towards forgiveness and getting on with being a better person. Conversely it can also be used to make the argument that capital punishment is not good for the development of one’s character since it can prevent one from experiencing the virtue of compassion and forgiveness if an “eye for an eye” doctrine is promoted in society. Thus this ethical system itself represents some complicated issues that have to be considered.
Kronenwetter, M. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. CA: ABC-
CLIO, 2001.
This book looks at the history of capital punishment in the world but mainly in the US from the time of the founding colonies on to today. It discusses the controversies and problems of capital punishment and why the death penalty has often been used for people convicted of murder. It tackles the subject from the standpoint of deterrence (the death penalty has deterrent value) and justice (it is a punitive sentence that shows to the living in society that justice has been served). It gives both sides of these issues, explaining the arguments of those who both support and oppose capital punishment. It does not adopt a particular view point but instead acts as a reference source so that one can easily learn what the various perspectives on the matter are and why they are important to consider in the long run.
The source is relevant to this research because it highlights all the different sides, controversies, problems and benefits of capital punishment. It shows how it has been embraced throughout history and explains why it has been rejected in modern times. It is objective and non-biased, similar to Capote’s book. But whereas Capote essentially gives a case study of one particular instance, this book is a reference source that focuses on the overview. One can learn a lot about capital punishment from this book and then use some of the knowledge gained to dig deeper into the subject and to read more about what the opposition and proponents of capital punishment say in their own writings.
Robbins, Tim, dir. Dead Man Walking. Gramercy Pictures, 1995. Film.
This is a film directed by Tim Robbins about a death row inmate who reaches out to a correspondent—a nun—and asks her to plead on his before for clemency. He denies any wrongdoing and claims that he is innocent. The nun asks him to accept responsibility for his crimes and that then he will be ready to go to God when he dies. The film shows the frustration that the family of the victims feels and explores their anger with the nun for trying to do so much to save this killer.
The film is relevant to this research because it provides a dramatic exploration of the topic of capital punishment. It does contain some sentimentality that is used for the purpose of catharsis. The film allows the viewer to work through various conflicting feelings on the topic and eventually enables the viewer to come away with an understanding of what it is that brings peace to people who are troubled by injustice, crime, and death as a punishment. The film touches on the importance of religion and faith and helps to show that capital punishment may not be about helping victims to feel better about their loss but that it helps to reflect a higher justice and the need for all people to be humble and to show more love to their neighbors. The film does an excellent job of rising out of the complexities of the issue to reach a higher wisdom.
Research Proposal
The topic of this research proposal is whether Canada should reinstate the death penalty for premeditated murder. The idea is to explore the reasons and justifications for capital punishment from the standpoint of the main ethical systems of virtue ethics, deontology and utilitarianism, while also touching on ethical egoism and the importance of having a higher understanding of justice and peace before reaching a final conclusion that capital punishment should be used to give people a sense of this higher justice but also the need for compassion. The two research questions that will guide the preliminary part of the research paper are: 1) is capital punishment morally justifiable? And 2) what are the reasons capital punishment is opposed by critics? The tentative thesis statement for this proposal is: the death penalty in Canada should be reinstated for premeditated murder on the principle of justice.