Ronald Turpin's Arguments Against Capital Punishment

On December 11th, 1962 the last two people were executed under Canadian law. Two men were hanged, which was the only method of capital punishment enforced in Canadian history (Setaram, 2015). One of the men, named Ronald Turpin, was convicted of killing a cop. The other, named Arthur Lucas, was convicted for murder. After these two trials in 1976, capital punishment was abolished. The death penalty was commonly sentenced for crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping and treason -- but committing crimes like “stealing turnips and being found disguised in a forest, were [also] punishable by death” (Gendreau, 2006). Capital punishment was first enforced in Canada in 1794, when a man named Peter Cartel murdered another man. From that point on, Canada …show more content…
The main argument being that the death penalty is ethically wrong and it is a violation to human rights. In the public eye, all the valid arguments supporting capital punishment do not outweigh the cons which is seen in the “148-127 [vote] [on] not to reinstate the death penalty” (Gendreau, 2006). One of the reasons that this method of punishment is so unethical is the possibility of executing an innocent person. A study was conducted in the U.S., which revealed that a minimum of 4.1% of all criminals sentenced to the death penalty are not guilty of the crime. Humans are fallible, and it is for this reason why the innocent are wrongly convicted ultimately ending their life. Those who oppose to the death penalty also claim that such a punishment would have no effect on those who live to kill. People who wish to commit a heinous act such as a mass killing or bombing would have no fears of what the repercussions would be. This is also true for serial killers because “living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again,” (Parks, 2010, pg 75). Although this is the case, in Canada, the main goal of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals and return them to society. If we were to execute the convicts, it effectively takes away all chances of ever rehabilitating …show more content…
When speaking about deterrence it is referring to specific and general deterrence. Specific is being able to deter previously convicted through punishment and incarceration. General is to deter the public in general away from committing crimes by informing them of the consequences. Numerous studies have found that capital punishment is not a great enough deterrence from serious offences to enforce it. The homicide rates of places with or without the death penalty are very similar in nature. “I see no alternative but to conclude that capital punishment cannot be justified on the basis of its deterrent effect” (Marshall,1972). Proving that is really is not a deterrence. Although one example of where capital punishment could be seen as an effective possible deterrent would be in The District of Columbia which has no death penalty has a very high rate of homicides. There are other deterrents to crime other than Capital Punishment, there is incarceration, fines, moral prohibitions and many others. One study, found that the elevated levels of assurance of arrest on crime lowered the burglary rate in Canada (Zedlewski, 1983). “Generally, those who believe they are likely to be caught and punished will be less likely to commit a criminal act” (Klepper and Nagin, 1989). Ethical boundaries that are linked with the actions and behaviour of people often come into play