Do certain crimes deserve the death penalty? That is not the question.

The real question is whether

the death penalty has a place in a society like ours. My answer is no. Why? Because the death
penalty is the weapon of choice for tyrants. It can not be that of a free and democratic society based
on individual responsibilities. Imagine that a criminal is executed in the context of a miscarriage of
justice: who will be held accountable? The judge, the executioner, the policeman in charge of the
investigation? We live in a state of law where nobody is supposed to be above the law and everyone
must be responsible for his or her actions. The reintroduction of the death penalty would be
tantamount to encouraging the return of a caste of despots invested with the power to execute an
individual without having to assume responsibility for it. Some believe that the death penalty is a
deterrent to dangerous criminals. Other than the execution of a serial criminal will protect the
population from recidivism. They are probably not wrong ... but we can probably achieve the same
results without having to take the road of tyranny.

Over time, societies have realized that the death penalty is neither moral nor effective. A community
of individuals should not have the power to take the life of one of the group members. This type of
practice leaves room for abuse and is not worthy of a society that believes in rehabilitation. Some
claim that the death penalty could save money. Several American studies have shown that the death
penalty is three times more expensive than life imprisonment. Criminal lawyers also agree that this
is not a deterrent. Indeed, the death penalty would not reduce the crime rate. So this is a closed
debate on which we should not come back. We must not allow the spirit of vengeance to take
precedence over reason and justice. Human life is sacred and murder is unacceptable whether
committed by a single individual or by a court.

Even if we wanted to reinstate the death penalty, could we legally do so? In 2005, Canada ratified
the International Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty. It has therefore joined a large number of
countries that have made an international commitment not to execute anyone else, even in
"exceptional cases". In addition, in a 2001 decision on extradition to the United States of alleged
criminals who could face the death penalty, the Supreme Court stated that in the vast majority of
cases Canada should not Extradition only if the United States pledged not to apply the death penalty.
Although the Court was not called upon to rule on the validity of the death penalty in Canada, its
reasons strongly suggest that it would rule that reinstatement of the death penalty is contrary to the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In principle, the reasons invoked to abolish the death
penalty in 1976 still hold: it is contrary to the right to life, has no deterrent effect superior to prison
and makes it impossible to correct errors Judicial authorities.

The debate on the death penalty died of his beautiful death in 1976 in Canada. The Canadian
Parliament had come to this wise decision after several years of acrimonious debates. Among the
reasons which motivated this choice of our elected representatives, two of them emerged. On the
one hand, there was always a risk of wrongful conviction, in which case it was obviously too late if
the convicted had been hanged. On the other hand, it had been shown that the death penalty was
not a deterrent. Today, some 35 years later, I do not see any situation where the death penalty
could be applied again, and that includes the killing of a police officer and when a murderer has no
chance of rehabilitation. And when a senator like Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu gives us economic
arguments, such as the fact that the life sentence of the Shafia will cost the State more than $ 10
million, he should explain his support for the draft Federal law C-10 on young offenders, which will
cost the government of Quebec billions of dollars in the next few years. And since this bill, in
addition to its exorbitant cost, goes against the principle of rehabilitation, I would like to know what
Senator Boisvenu has in mind.