Abolish Capital Punishment

Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

Why oppose the death penalty?

There are arguments in refusing death penalty: the most basic is reverence for the sanctity of life. It is difficult to understand, how killing people teaches that killing is wrong.

The right to life is the most basic of human rights. So death penalty is a violation.

Human rights, particularly one as basic as the right to life, are not, however, given or granted by governments and they cannot be taken away by governments. Human rights must belong to everyone or they belong to no one.

The death penalty is the last vestige of a brutal and antiquated notion of justice. Some justify the death penalty on a notion of justice that requires the punishment to fit the crime. In other words, it must be a “life-for-a-life” and one must forfeit his/her life if that individual intentionally causes the death of another person. But, we do not amputate the hand of someone who steals or use beating as a punishment for someone convicted of assault. We now believe that, in such cases, the punishment should be limited to the deprivation of freedom, with the ultimate deprivation of freedom being incarceration.

Opponents of the death penalty believe that public support cannot justify its use. The history of our civilization is rife with examples where horrendous acts have been justified by claims of public support. Slavery of blacks and their continued disenfranchisement enjoyed high public support in the history of the United States. Had it not been for committed abolitionist and civil rights movements and courageous politicians who persisted despite public support, slavery and disenfranchisement in law could still be a part of the American reality.

Clearly public support does not make an action right.

Abolition of the death penalty is supported by the leaders of the major religious denominations. While some may use religious texts to support continued use of the death penalty, religious leaders reject such literal translations.

More reasons to oppose the death penalty

Beyond the moral, philosophical and religious arguments, some very practical reasons related to issues of justice and effectiveness support the position against the death penalty.

# The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.

Those who support the death penalty often use the argument that it is a deterrent, either because the severity of the punishment will stop people from committing murder in the first place (general deterrence) or prevent a person from being able to murder again (the ultimate individual deterrence).

The argument of general deterrence assumes that people who murder know what they are doing and think about the punishment before acting, weigh the consequences of their actions, make their decisions rationally and act accordingly. The majority of murders, however, are committed in the heat of passion and/or under the influence of alcohol and drugs, when there is little thought given to the possible consequences of the act.

Evidence from both the U.S. and Canada shows that it is difficult to make the case for the general deterrent effect of the death penalty. If it was a deterrent, one would expect to find increases in the homicide rate in Canada since abolition, In fact, the homicide rate has continually declined since 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty. In 1999, the homicide rate was the lowest since 1967. Further, the number of police officers killed in Canada has not been higher than 1962, the year of the last executions in Canada, when 11 police officers were killed. An analysis by the New York Times in 2000 found that, during the last 20 years, the homicide rates in U.S. states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The argument that the death penalty at least ensures that the person will ever murder again is premised on the belief that a high proportion of those released will murder again and that rehabilitation and change is impossible. In fact, those convicted of murder have much lower re-offending rates for any offence and incidence of another murder upon release is extremely rare. A study in the U.S. found that less than one-third of one percent - 0.31 percent - of the paroled murderers were subsequently convicted of homicide. Figures for Europe and Canada are similar.

# Innocent people can be convicted of crimes and the death penalty is irreversible.

Experienced cases of wrongful murder convictions, most notably Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and Guy-Paul Morin. A 1980's study in the U.S. identified 353 cases since the turn of the century of wrongful convictions for offences punishable by death and 25 were actually executed. In Illinois, 13 death row inmates have been cleared of their murder charges since 1977, either because DNA evidence exonerated them or their cases collapsed at a new trial ordered by the appellate courts.
Without the death penalty, there is always opportunities for some form of
compensation to the individual, as we have done in the cases of Marshall,
Milgaard and Morin. With the death penalty, there is no compensation.

# The death penalty is unfair.

Evidence from the U.S. showed substantial evidence that factors other than the crime itself, namely race and economic status, greatly influenced who gets executed and who does not. In that country, it has been used almost exclusively on the poor and people of colour.

And finally: Our international obligations As a country, we take pride in our membership in the United Nations and in our strong support of its role in defining and protecting human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N in 1948. It set the direction for all subsequent work in the field of human rights, including the more recent undertaking aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. It begins with Article 3 of the Declaration which states that:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

The meaning of the right to life is more fully defined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the U.N. in 1966. This covenant not only defines limits to the use of the death penalty for countries which have not abolished it but also refers to the abolition of the death penalty in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable.

An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of ahuman life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder.

Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr.

A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

Pope John Paul II, 1999

As of September 2000, over one-half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice. Given the fact that many have done so within the last 25 years, the message that the death penalty is a violation of human rights is obviously being heard. We can help this movement continue to grow.