Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

“Two wrongs don’t make a right”

By Brittany Thiessen


Canada’s first execution via the death penalty occurred on January 19, 1649 of a 16 year old girl guilty of theft. The last two people to be executed in Canada were Arthur Lucas, age 54 and Robert Turpin, age 29 on December 11, 1962 at Don’s Jail in Toronto. Turpin had been convicted of killing a police officer and Lucas of an undercover narcotics agent.


Capital Punishment, also known as the death penalty, is defined as the act of killing or executing a person found guilty of a serious crime, by the government.


Some individuals and groups believe in the logic, “the more severe the crime, more severe punishment is necessary,” meaning that if an individual murders someone, they in turn, should be killed. A common argument of these advocates is that punishment should be equal to the crime and as the saying goes, “an eye for an eye.” The other side of the argument is against capital punishment. In my opinion, killing another person is just not humane, even if they are a convicted criminal. As the saying goes, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In other words, if murder is considered to be wrong (which is the generally accepted idea), then executing the murderer is also wrong. I believe that capital punishment violates basic human rights. Every individual should have the right to life and not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment and punishment. Another very controversial issue is that some people who have already been executed have later been proven to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. They were killed for something they didn’t even do. Canadian Steven Truscott was sentenced to death at the young age of 14 in 1959. He was convicted of killing a classmate, Lynn Harper. Before being executed, it was discovered that Truscott was innocent on the basis of prosecutorial and police misconduct and manipulating evidence. He was sentenced to life in prison and then acquitted of the charges in 2007. Can you imagine is he had only been found innocent after being executed? Should we, as a civilized society, be willing to take the risk of executing an innocent individual? I also believe that prison may be helpful in rehabilitating criminals through treatment programs, as an alternative to the death penalty. If a person is executed, they are never given a second chance at attempting to improve themselves, by eliminating their pro-criminal attitudes, behaviours and values. Administering the death penalty has not been shown to decrease the overall crime rate in any society and is not proven to be a deterrent to crime.

On July 14,1976 capital punishment was removed from the Canadian Criminal Code and abolished in Canada. The government ruled that it was not appropriate due to the possibility of wrongful convictions and uncertainty about it’s effectiveness as a deterrant. It was replaced with the mandatory life sentence including no eligibility of parole for at least 25 years for first degree murder and between 10-25 for second degree murder. The only execution method ever used in Canada was hanging. In 1869, three crimes warranted the death penalty; murder, rape and treason. By 1961, only capital murder (planned and deliberate) was punishable by death. Capital punishment is still prevalent in thirty five of the fifty one United States where lethal injection is the most common method used.

If we as a society execute an individual, what is the difference between us and the criminal who allegedly committed the murder? Why should society kill individuals convicted of murder to demonstrate society’s disapproval of murder? In the end, two wrongs definitely don’t make a right.