Does The Death Penalty Effectively Deter Crime? Rehabilitation VS Retribution

Abstract:

The death sentence is a contentious issue in the area of criminal justice, provoking heated arguments over its efficacy and ethical consequences. The article dives into the concepts of retribution and rehabilitation that shape the ongoing debate over the death penalty. Proponents of retribution argue that justice requires consequences proportionate to the nature of the crime, typically advocating for the death sentence for serious misconduct. In contrast, the rehabilitation approach emphasizes personal growth and questions the morality and efficiency of capital punishment. By examining the legal foundations and ethical intricacies of these viewpoints, the study shows the challenges that modern justice systems have in reconciling accountability with compassion. Ultimately, it advocates for a rethinking of capital punishment, supporting a more balanced approach that includes both retribution and rehabilitation.

Key Words;

Death Penalty, Criminal Justice, Morality, Capital Punishment, Proportionality, Retribution, Rehabilitation, Crime, Justice, Deterrence

Introduction:

The death penalty remains one of the most divisive topics in contemporary criminal justice, raising significant legal, ethical, and human rights concerns. Although it was abolished in Canada in 1998, discussions regarding its legitimacy continue to emerge in public discourse, especially in response to global cases that reignite debates about justice, deterrence, and the value of human life. [1] Recent crimes in the US and Iran have raised concerns about death punishment’s compatibility with modern human rights norms. These changes in Canada threaten the country’s legal norms, notably Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of persons. [2]

The case of Steven Truscott serves as a significant entry point into the intricate debate surrounding the death penalty and its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. On 30 September 1959, at the age of just 14, Truscott was wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of 12-year-old Lynne Harper, making him “the youngest person in Canadian history to be sentenced to hang”. His case not only sparked public outrage but also raised essential questions about “the reliability of the justice system and the moral implications of capital punishment”. As abolitionists rallied around Truscott’s plight, they emphasized the potential for “irreversible errors in a system that prioritized retribution over rehabilitation”. This case exemplifies broader societal anxieties regarding the death penalty, particularly its failure to serve as “an effective deterrent while simultaneously risking the execution of innocent individuals”. Through Truscott’s story, we are compelled to reconsider whether a punitive approach truly enhances public safety or if a focus on rehabilitation might offer a more humane and effective solution to crime prevention. [3]

This topic is still relevant in today’s legal circumstances, not only because certain groups advocate for the reinstatement of the death penalty in response to heinous crimes, but also because it brings into question the balance between two essential philosophies of punishment: retribution and rehabilitation. Retribution, based on the notion of proportionate justice, asserts that certain offenses deserve the most severe consequences possible. In contrast, rehabilitation sees punishment as an opportunity for change and reintegration into society, even for the most heinous crimes.

Throughout the twentieth century, Canadian criminal justice moved away from punishing methods and toward more rehabilitative approaches. [4] Despite this transformation, conflicts between these two perspectives remain, particularly when the judicial system is confronted with horrendous crimes that elicit strong public emotions. This article will examine the legal and ethical framework of both retributive and rehabilitative conceptions of punishment in relation to death punishment, as well as its consequences for justice, human rights, and public safety. Finally, it raises an important question: Can society genuinely attain justice by retribution, or does the possibility of human transformation need a rehabilitative approach, even in the most devastating cases?

Retribution: The Ethics of Equal Suffering

The legal basis for capital punishment in Canada was previously based on the Criminal Code of Canada, which mandated the death sentence for crimes such as murder and treason. These regulations represented a retributive justice concept, based on the “just deserts” principle, which states that punishment should be in proportion to the moral importance of the act. This notion links back to early legal systems, including Hammurabi’s Code and biblical law, when “an eye for an eye” was considered a moral necessity. In early tribal societies, justice frequently meant vengeance or balance. If someone stole your sheep, you may take one back. This is retributive justice, which uses punishment to make things feel equal and fair. [5]

In Canadian law, retribution has historically justified death punishment as a method of honoring victims, preserving the dignity of the law, and deterring serious offenses. However, the adoption of Bill C-84 in 1998 permanently abolished the death sentence in all cases, signaling a significant change in legislative priorities toward human rights and rehabilitative justice. [6]

This shift aligns with constitutional protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, while Section 12 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Both provisions have been interpreted to limit the state’s authority to impose irreversible, inhumane penalties. [7]

This change is consistent with constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, whereas Section 12 outlaws harsh and unusual punishment. Both laws have been regarded as limiting the state’s ability to impose permanent, harsh sanctions. [8]

Rehabilitation: Corrections with a Purpose

Rehabilitation, unlike retribution, regards criminal punishment as an opportunity for transformation rather than an act of moral vengeance. It relies on the assumption that criminals, regardless of the seriousness of their crimes, have the capacity for reform and reintegration into society. Within this perspective, the death sentence is a fundamental failing of the justice system’s rehabilitative purpose since it eliminates any prospect of development, reflection, or repentance. By providing for correction without resorting to state-sanctioned death, rehabilitation guarantees that justice is administered with purpose rather than inevitability.

The conceptual foundations of rehabilitation link back to utilitarian thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who emphasized results. To them, the law’s purpose was not to exact moral vengeance, but rather to reduce harm. Punishment is appropriate if it deters future crimes or discourages others from committing them. Bentham argued that punishment

is only appropriate if it serves a greater societal goal, such as preventing future crimes, safeguarding the public, or rehabilitating the offenders. This strategy shifted the emphasis away from moral sanction and toward public usefulness and safety. In other words, a penalty that does not yield actual advantages, such as lowering recidivism or preventing crime, is both morally and practically unacceptable. These philosophers moved away from guilt and toward public safety. [9]

Judicial Interpretation

Judicial interpretation has served a critical role in undermining the credibility of capital punishment in Canada. As previously stated, Truscott became the youngest person in Canadian history to receive the death penalty. Despite the fact that his sentence was reduced to life in prison, Truscott spent a decade behind bars while claiming his innocence. After analyzing additional forensic evidence, expert testimony, and trial inconsistencies, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned his conviction in 2007, deciding that the evidence was insufficient to uphold it. While the Court did not find Truscott factually innocent, it did identify severe procedural defects and labeled the case a miscarriage of justice. The story is a striking reminder of the irreparable risk inherent in capital punishment. [10]

The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated this position in United States v Burns, 2001 SCC 7.  [11] Two Canadian citizens were facing prosecution to the United States for a capital offence. The Court ruled that unless guarantees were given that the death sentence would not be enforced, abduction would violate Section 7 of the Charter. The Court described capital punishment as “cruel and irreversible” and incompatible with the principles of fundamental justice. This decision overturned the earlier, more lenient approach reached in Kindler v Canada [1991] 2 SCR 779, and established a binding precedent that Canada would not participate in executions overseas without clear precautions. [12]

Critical Analysis

Despite Canada’s strong legislative and legal opposition to the death penalty, certain weaknesses remain. Extradition to nations where the death penalty is still lawful tests Canada’s commitment to abolition. While Burns requires guarantees, negotiations may create political and practical factors that undermine the principle’s impartiality.

Wrongful convictions, such as the Truscott case, highlight systemic concerns such as confirmation bias, prosecution overreach, poor forensic science, and media-fueled public indignation. These variables may influence the impartiality of proceedings, especially in high-profile cases. The irreversibility of execution worsens such risks to an intolerable extent.

In comparison, jurisdictions such as the United States continue to use the death penalty despite established wrongful convictions, racial inequities, and deterrent issues. Canada’s deviation from this approach shows a policy decision that prioritizes human rights and procedural fairness over punitive harshness. However, public opinion assessments frequently show increased interest in restoration following severe offences, reflecting the persistent conflict between punitive feeling and constitutional safeguards.

Recent Developments

Since abolition in 1998, Canada has expanded its worldwide anti-death penalty position. In 2005, Canada signed the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, committed to worldwide abolition. Canadian diplomatic policy now frequently seeks empathy for people facing death overseas, as seen by situations involving international drug trafficking convictions. [13]

Domestically, political leaders from all parties have usually opposed requests for reinstatement, citing constitutional restrictions, moral issues, and the possibility of court mistake. Nonetheless, high-profile violent crimes can spark public discussion, assisted by media coverage portraying capital punishment as a practical deterrent. While these arguments have not led to substantial legislative initiatives, they highlight the significance of preserving explicit legal and constitutional safeguards against the weakening of the abolitionist position.

Integrating Justice Objectives: A Forward-Looking Model

In the Canadian context, balancing the goals of deterrence, responsibility, and rehabilitation provides a logical alternative to punishment. This approach views sentencing not as a means of moral punishment, but as a purposeful plan to improve public safety, respect Charter rights, and facilitate offender reintegration.

For the most serious crimes, such as first-degree murder, long-term or life imprisonment without the possibility of release might ensure proportional responsibility while removing the

perpetual risks of death. Within such sentences, organized rehabilitative procedures supported  by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, would offer offenders with access to education, vocational training, and mental health treatment, encouraging the possibility of ultimate reintegration.

In addition, community-based restorative justice efforts, as outlined in Section 718 of the Criminal Code, [14] could possibly address the larger harms of crime by incorporating victims, offenders, and communities in a process of healing and prevention. By combining appropriate punishments with possibilities for reform, Canada may maintain a principled and functional justice system while avoiding the ethical and procedural difficulties formerly connected with the death sentence.

Conclusion

The death penalty debate in Canada is a deep reflection of the principles that guide our legal system and goes beyond issues of procedural protections or deterrent statistics. Retribution uses the concepts of proportionality, public revenge, and moral accountability to argue that some offenses call for the worst punishment conceivable. Advocates frequently argue that the death penalty is a necessary moral reaction to the most serious crimes, and that its harshness underlines society’s condemnation of extreme violence. However, history and case law show that this strategy may not prove to improve public safety and involves an irreparable danger, as demonstrated by Steven Truscott’s erroneous conviction.

In contrast, rehabilitation emphasizes the possibility of human transformation, rejecting the assumption that justice is accomplished primarily by vengeance. This perspective is consistent with Canada’s fundamental responsibilities under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as its legislative emphasis on offender reintegration under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Rehabilitation does not justify illegal conduct; rather, it tries to treat the underlying reasons, prevent recidivism, and protect the dignity of both offenders and the society to which they may one day return.

Canada abolished the death penalty in 1998, which was supported by Supreme Court judgments such as United States v Burns, reflecting a conscious decision to value human rights, procedural fairness, and the chance of redemption above permanent punishment. However, repeated appeals for reinstatement in the aftermath of high-profile crimes show that retributive emotions may still impact public opinion. This conflict needs ongoing attention to ensure that justice policy is informed by facts, constitutional principles, and ethical consistency rather than reactive feeling.

Ultimately, a fair and successful criminal justice system must strike a balance between the genuine demand for responsibility and the equally strong goal of rehabilitation. By combining appropriate punishments for the most serious crimes with strong restorative and reintegrative measures, Canada can retain a moral posture that respects victims while also affirming the possibility of human transformation. In doing so, the country promotes a vision of justice that extends beyond retribution, protecting society while embracing the highest principles of fairness, humanism, and the rule of law.

Reference(S):

[1] Amnesty International, ‘Death Penalty in Canada’

https://amnesty.ca/what-we-do/death-penalty/death-penalty-in-canada accessed 13 August 2025

[2]Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, s 7

[3] Darbyson N, ‘“Sadists and Softies:” Gender and the Abolition of the Death Penalty in Canada: A Case Study of Steven Truscott, 1959–1976’ (2011) 103(1) Ontario History 1 https://doi.org/10.7202/1065478ar

[4] Correctional Service Canada, ‘History of the Death Penalty in Canada’ (Government of Canada, 2023)

https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/education/history/module.html?utm _source accessed 13 August 2025

[5] Von Hirsch et al. (1998)

[6] Bill C-84, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Capital Punishment), 36th Parl, 1st Sess, 1998 (assented to 10 December 1998)

[7] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 12, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c 11

[8] Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20, s 3

[9] Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, Module 7: Punishment—Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Deterrence https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/pdf/m7.pdf accessed 13 August 2025

[10] R v Truscott 2007 ONCA 575

[11] United States v Burns 2001 SCC 7, [2001] 1 SCR 283

[12] Kindler v Canada (Minister of Justice) [1991] 2 SCR 779

[13] Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (adopted 15 December 1989, entered into force 11 July 1991, accession by Canada 25 November 2005) 1642 UNTS 414

[14] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 718