The Death Penalty should indisputably be re-integrated into the Criminal Code in Canada. Over the years, punishments have lessened in severity to meet requirements that label them as humane and civil, and those at fault are receiving an inappropriate amount of solace. The Death Penalty is a blunt and effective way of instilling fear into citizens to abide by rules and regulations, and is the only manner of justice that accurately disciplines certain acts. By no means am I saying that anyone who gets in trouble with the law should be subjected to death; I’m signifying the reputability of this system and its judicious nature in comparison to other forms of righteousness. Alas, the Death Penalty has been neglected for far too long and will only provide benefits to our present mediocre system of law.
Furthermore, let’s address the pros of this controversial topic. To begin, adopting the Death Penalty blatantly demonstrates how the justice system has no sympathy for criminals, which can act as an effective deterrent to those considering breaking the law. In addition, it provides families of victims concrete closure that whoever committed the act is no longer alive. Put yourself in an affected family’s position; for example, a very close relative of yours has been brutally murdered and the killer is in prison. This event will haunt you for the rest of your life, and knowing that the individual who took their life is abiding in a penitentiary where they have access to television, internet, and the opportunity to pursue a degree is wretched. The criminal gets to continue their life, as opposed to your innocent family member who is no longer with us. Not to mention the thought at the back of your mind, fearing the criminal’s escape and repeat of their crime, potentially taking more lives. Don’t be naive and assume this doesn’t happen, because it does. Jimmy Lee Gray murdered his sixteen-year-old girlfriend by slitting her throat and served 7 years in prison before he was paroled by the same judge who sentenced him. Within a week, he raped and murdered a 3-year-old girl, Deressa Jean Seales, in a gruesome fashion. A 3-year-old girl. She had her whole life ahead of her, and now doesn’t even get a chance to experience her fourth birthday. The Death Penalty doesn’t sound so bad now, does it? Another case; John Straffen. In July of 1952, John was incarcerated after slaughtering a “schoolgirl”, and within months, managed to escape. He made his way into a nearby village called Arborfield. He proceeded to strangle five-year-old Linda Bowyer, who had been out riding her bike. Another child, ripped from her family. Imagine the state of her mother; who more than likely told her something along the lines of “Be safe sweetie”, experiencing a parental dilemma of wanting to allow her daughter some freedom, however wanting to protect her at all times simultaneously. She will never forgive herself. She will never forgive herself for the rest of her life. She will replay scenarios in her mind of what she possibly could have done that would have resulted in a different outcome, until the day she dies. All because of a failed justice system that allowed a criminal to strike again. In totality, the Death Penalty would have prevented this situation from happening altogether. Thus, it would also drastically aid in the problem regarding overpopulation in prisons. Now you may be considering the few times when the wrong person is convicted for something they didn’t do. Fortunately, the availability of modern testings such as DNA testing virtually eliminates all room for error that could arise when evaluating crime scenes. The entire scene is analyzed and any particles of skin, hair, saliva etc. are processed, successfully identifying people who were present. The only fault in this system is when identical twins are involved, but the ratio of crimes that include twins as opposed to crimes that don’t, are significantly in favour of the latter. You should also be aware that utilizing the Death Penalty would cost more than traditional imprisonment as an appropriate amount of court gatherings must be held to elicit an accurate response from the jury. This would be permitted through a slight increase on taxes. Nonetheless, when morality and justice are at question, I personally don’t feel like a minuscule raise of taxes plays any relevant role. At first I’m sure some of you were adamant that this was abolished for a reason and that we shouldn’t even consider bringing it back. But, after truly analysing its potential positive impact, I hope your point of view has been altered or at least has got you thinking whether it’s the right way to approach the future. I know a lot of people strongly support the importance of second chances and allowing people to shift their focus to eventually become a productive member of society. However, high reward yields high risk. For those of you still unsure of where you lie surrounding this concept, I’ll leave you with a question, do you truly feel second chances are worth the risk of another innocent life? https://www.finanacecareonline.com/2013/07/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-death.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/capital-punishment-in-canada-1.795391 https://www.ranker.com/list/ways-people-kill-time-in-prison/mike-rothschild https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Killers-Who-Kill-Again
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|