Purpose of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned execution of a person convicted of a serious crime, often murder. Historically justified as a deterrent to crime, a means of retribution, or a tool for justice, it remains one of the most debated legal practices. Advocates often highlight its role in delivering closure to victims’ families and reinforcing the value of human life by punishing its unlawful taking. Critics point to the risk of wrongful convictions, potential bias in sentencing, and its moral and ethical implications. Some nations and states uphold it; others have abolished it entirely. The debate often centers on justice, human rights, deterrence, and fallibility.

Key Question

To what extent does capital punishment fulfill its intended purpose of justice and deterrence, given the risks, costs, and ethical concerns it raises?

Perspective 1 – Canadian Government Policy Context (Canada, Department of Justice)

Since its abolition in 1976, Canada has cited multiple factors in discontinuing capital punishment. Parliamentary debates referenced studies showing little evidence of deterrence and highlighted concerns about irreversible error. Government reports noted that legal safeguards did not eliminate the possibility of wrongful conviction—an unacceptable risk in irreversible sentencing. Canadian courts also addressed the psychological burden placed on juries and judges in capital cases, as well as the disproportionate impact on marginalized groups. Over time, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came to frame punishment standards more explicitly around human dignity and protection from cruel and unusual treatment. Canada's extradition policy also shifted; individuals cannot be sent to countries where they may face execution unless explicit assurances are made. In public communications, the Department of Justice emphasizes a justice system based on rehabilitation and prevention, reflecting a shift from punitive models toward social reintegration and structural accountability.

Perspective 2 – U.S. State Justice Department Press Release (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 2023)

Several U.S. states continue to carry out executions under capital punishment statutes. Official statements from departments such as Texas’s emphasize that capital sentencing is reserved for “the most egregious offenses” and follows “extensive legal review.” These departments highlight procedural safeguards, including automatic appeals and access to defense counsel, to underscore fairness in administration. Some press releases note public support for capital punishment within their states and cite surveys where respondents express confidence in its role as a deterrent and a measure of accountability. Victim impact is also foregrounded: families are often referenced in official communications, and the justice system is portrayed as ensuring that “justice is seen to be done.” Execution protocols are described in neutral administrative terms, with oversight mechanisms detailed. These communications avoid moral justification, instead focusing on lawfulness, precedent, and public interest. Officials frequently cite legal consistency and judicial discretion as essential components in maintaining the practice.

Perspective 3 – Legal Scholar’s Analysis (Brandon L. Garrett, Duke Law, 2022)

Brandon Garrett, a legal scholar, has written extensively on wrongful convictions and death penalty appeals. He documents numerous cases in which DNA evidence led to exonerations, some of which occurred after years—or even decades—on death row. His research compiles data on prosecutorial misconduct, unreliable witness testimony, and false confessions, all disproportionately present in capital cases. He observes how capital trials often rely on emotionally charged presentations, and how jury selection practices can unintentionally skew outcomes. Garrett discusses the economic cost of death penalty cases, which require extensive litigation, expert witnesses, and prolonged incarceration even before sentencing is finalized. His analysis includes comparisons between states that have abolished the death penalty and those that have not, noting similar crime trends across both. He also explores the implications of race, class, and geography in determining who receives the death penalty. His work frames capital punishment as a system vulnerable to error, despite legal intent.

Perspective 4 – Victim Advocacy Organization Testimony (Murder Victims’ Families for Justice, 2021)

Some victim advocacy groups present diverse views on the role of capital punishment in the healing process. In a public testimony, a member of Murder Victims’ Families for Justice recalled years of court hearings following the homicide of a loved one. The family had been told an execution would bring closure. Yet delays, appeals, and inconsistent updates prolonged emotional strain. The speaker described uncertainty around timelines and difficulty navigating the process, which often conflicted with grieving. Others in the group shared different experiences, emphasizing how knowing a sentence would be carried out provided a sense of accountability and finality. The organization’s forums include a range of perspectives, but commonly raise questions about whether state-sanctioned execution serves the needs of survivors. Testimonies reveal how some families seek restorative justice alternatives, while others support capital punishment’s role in affirming the seriousness of the crime. These narratives reveal the emotional complexity that legal processes often overlook.