Capital Punishment is a practice where those who have committed the worst of crimes (depending on the country) are put to death as their punishment. In the beginning of Canada’s existence (1860’s), crimes of murder, treason, and rape resulted in the death penalty in Upper and Lower Canada. The law had not changed much for almost 100 years until in the 1960’s, where murder was divided into two groups, capital or non-capital murder. Capital murders would have either been premeditated murder (planned) and murder of a police officer, guard or warden on duty which both would have resulted in death as punishment. The last executions took place in 1962 which were given to two men guilty one of premeditated murder and the other murder of a policemen while avoiding arrest. Capital punishment however continued to be legal until the year 1976 where capital punishment was outlawed. In 1987, Capital Punishment was debated in the House of Commons to reintroduce the law however it was voted against in a free vote. In the short story, “Two Fishermen” by Morley Callaghan, a man named Thomas Delaney was convicted of murder given the death penalty for killing a man that molested his wife. If this happened in Canada during the time before the law was outlawed, I do not believe Delaney would have received the same punishment. Unless after the 1960’s, any sort of murder, premeditated or not, justified or not, would have resulted in the death penalty despite probably having justification.
Now in the short story, “Two Fishermen” by Morley Callaghan, Thomas Delaney should not have been executed for killing Matthew Rhinehart, whom he caught molesting his wife. There is only one rational reason for this conclusion however it should not be refuted. Delaney should not have been executed for killing Rhinehart because he killed the man out of defending himself and his wife. Early in the story, the audience is told that, “There had been a struggle and Thomas Delaney had taken a bad beating before he had killed Rhinehart”, indicating that there had been a struggle and Delaney killed Rhinehart out of self defense (Callaghan 1). Now although it still resulted in the death of a person, Delaney should not have been punished for protecting himself and his wife from the man he eventually killed. Rhinehart began the altercation with Delaney’s wife and was attempting to and succeeded in injuring Delaney in a fight before Delaney ended up killing him. Now although there are also some sentimental reasons on why Rhinehart’s death was justified or why Delaney should not have been punished however, sentimental reasoning should not determine or factor in when deciding weather someone should get the death penalty or not. Despite there being only one logical and unsentimental reason for why Delaney should not have been executed, protecting yourself of someone else from physical harm should not ever result in a punishment, no matter how far the situation escalates and if you kill someone out of self defense.