Case agianst death.

• Author: Charles B. Davison

This issue of Law Now has as its primary focus the difference between public perceptions of the criminal law, and reality. Nowhere is the gap between myth and fact so wide in the criminal law sphere, than in the never-ending debate over capital punishment.

The death penalty was abolished for most crimes in Canada in 1976 (it still exists under the National Defence Act for certain serious military offences). The House of Commons last voted on the issue in 1987, and at that time, again affirmed its opposition to the reinstatement of capital punishment. Yet the debate continues, mainly at the instigation of the right wing, who see the execution of convicted criminals as one way to demonstrate its general tough on crime and criminals stance.

What does the death penalty represent? What does it actually accomplish?

Even the strongest supporters of capital punishment now admit that it has no deterrent value or effect. In the debate leading to the 1987 Parliamentary free vote, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police--perhaps the strongest and most vocal organization of death penalty supporters at the time--conceded that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Around the world, study after study has found no deterrent or effect to capital punishment, even where executions are carried out in public. (Ironically, some studies actually reflect a slight increase in violent crimes immediately after executions in certain situations.)

The death penalty is really little more than a convenient placebo which, despite its political usefulness and symbolism, in fact accomplishes little. In the United States, the states which execute the most convicted criminals are also those with the highest violent crime rates. Texas is the prime example: year after year it executes the most inmates, and yet no noticeable long-term change in its extremely high murder rate--or any other measure of criminal activity--takes place.

To question the death penalty's usefulness or appropriateness publicly, though, would be political suicide for any person seeking to attain public office in states like Texas. Vocal support for capital punishment is a necessary prerequisite if one hopes for political success. Any other stance would lead to accusations of being soft on crime and too liberal for the public good.

In many situations in the United States, a need to avoid being accused of such softness or liberalism leads to terrible examples of passing the buck, and to terrible...