To kill, or to not kill, that is the question

A debate for the ages: should the death penalty be abolished?

Firstly, one must discuss what the death penalty is by definition. Formerly judicial homicide, now known as capital punishment or the death penalty, this concept known by many names applies to when an offender sentenced to death is executed after conviction by a court of law due to the criminal offence they carried out. In the current day and age, intentional murder is the prime reason for employing this severe punishment, but it varies historically and according to countries' varying laws.

In Canada, the death penalty was last used to execute at 12:02 am on December 11, 1962, by hanging Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas in Toronto’s Don Jail. It was then entirely abolished on December 10, 1998, so many of us have not lived in a world in which it is a concern in our country, but many countries still utilize this punishment as they hold the belief that it acts as a deterrent to others' consideration of committing future crimes as well as providing just retribution. Albeit, nowadays, many use injection, a form of euthanasia widely considered more ethical than its predecessors and alternatives.

This is a topic that has continually inflamed and divided those on either side of the argument.

If you talk to the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on February 28, 2023, he declared his thoughts on the matter requesting all nations to work more towards the outright abolition of the death penalty as it is still ongoing in 79 countries worldwide including our southern neighbours: the United States of America, and much of the information on studies conducted on this subject matter isn’t available to the public. Also, only 2 of the 79 nations adhere to international standards that restrict the practice to the most serious crimes, with some of the 77 countries applying it to those who “commit” same-sex sexual acts and “so-called religious offences.” Though there have been achievements in abolishing capital punishment or moratoriums on these executions across the world, great strides still need to be made. According to Idrissa Sow, chair of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, more than half of African nations currently implement capital punishment so he believes that other national and international institutions need to work toward a universal abolition.

As the United Nations Human Rights department states, “The use of the death penalty is not consistent with the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Other arguments posed against its use are that it is inhumane and involves much racial and economic bias disproportionately affecting poor individuals, visible minorities and other marginalized groups. Also, it is irreversible and mistakes can be made when it comes to criminal convictions leading to potentially innocent individuals

winding up on death row facing execution. Moreover, it has been proven to be inefficient at deterring crime, the main point in favour of its inclusion and usage in the judicial system. Even from a monetary point of view, according to experts in criminal justice, it is extremely costly and drain resources that could be allocated toward crime prevention, reform and rehabilitation as well as affording victims justice, remedy and dignity. The UN rights commissioner avowed that “until every nation abolishes the death penalty, the road to defending human dignity will never be fully complete.”

Now that I have laid out the arguments, should there even be a question on the matter?