By Marcel Strigberger | July 13, 2026
While in practice, a frequent question laypeople asked me was, “Do you support capital punishment?” My answer is that I am a staunch advocate of capital punishment — as long as nobody actually gets executed. In fact, I believe this is doable.
I recently watched a performance of Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado, in which the Mikado, lamenting the dearth of recent acitivity on the execution front, orders the Lord High Executioner Ko-Ko to put someone to death. Having never actually executed anyone, poor Ko-Ko’s nerve fails him. After some plot twists, Ko-Ko swears an affidavit attesting that he has performed an execution. When the Mikado later finds out that nobody was executed, Ko-Ko gets out of the jam by telling him something along the lines of that when the great Mikado orders something done, it is as good as done.
To paraphrase further, the actual doing of the deed is superfluous and unnecessary as the deed is regarded to have been performed after Mikado utters the order.
I believe jurisdictions that still pursue capital punishment can and should legislate this tamer form of killing. It might go like this:
Upon conviction for a capital offence, the presiding judge would still impose the death penalty and perhaps issue something like a “Writ of Execution.”
The judge could then choose any method of execution deemed appropriate, or even take suggestions from the jury.
A ceremonial execution would then take place.
If, for instance, the jury is in the mood for a bit of French ceremony, the judge might order the accused, we may as well call him Mr. Langly, to be guillotined. As there would be no actual head rolling, the execution could be public to promote general deterrence. A guillotine equipped with a rubber blade would be set up in front of the local city hall, a drum roll would sound, and chop chop, the execution would be completed.
And do we foresee Charter issues? Cruel and unusual punishment?
No doubt there would be some clown of a convict with a beard who would probably recall Sir Thomas More’s beheading and utter to the executioner something about ensuring his beard isn’t hit in the process.
I looked at the Charter and saw nothing protecting the rights of a beard. We’re good to go.
After the execution, a doctor would examine the accused. Actually, I do not think this part is necessary, but the government probably needs more records and paperwork. The physician would only conduct a cursory exam, check the man’s heart, and ask how he’s feeling. If the guy says, “Okay,” the doctor would tell him, “No you’re not. You’re defunct.” He could take a blood pressure reading that might read: actual, 140 over 85; deemed in law, 0.”
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Once deemed dead, the accused would suffer all the amenities exclusive to deceased persons. His executor would be able to probate his will. All property jointly held would vest in his survivor. And of course he would no longer receive mail, not consistently anyway. Many of us don’t have to die to be the beneficiaries of this latter service.
His pension rights would cease, he would not be able to incorporate a company and, most punitive, he would be barred from having an Instagram account. How’s that for general deterrence?
A death certificate would issue, and the fact of expiration would be duly noted on the deceased’s driver’s licence, thereby prohibiting him from operating a motor vehicle anywhere. There could be one exception. Montreal. My home. A place where rules on running a red light, speeding, and stopping at a stop sign are optional. Noticing the way people drive, I have grave doubts that anybody in that city has ever passed a driving test.
The advantages of my suggestions are clear. Aside from the fact that no life is snuffed out, the process is reversible. If, for example, a convicted man’s innocence is later discovered — and we have seen this happen a number of times — there would be no problem in bringing him back from the dead. His lawyers might apply for something called returnus the corpus. The only problem I foresee is the lawyer getting paid. The deceased could conceivably argue that he was dead on his return when he hired the lawyer, and was therefore incompetent and had no legal status to enter into contracts. But that’s a problem for us lawyers to iron out.
I feel this method of capital punishment would placate both its proponents and the abolitionists.
We have not had the death penalty in Canada for about 50 years, and the 1960 was the last we executed anyone.
Can this idea ever come to fruition? Maybe? In dealing with a hot issue such as capital punishment, you have to think outside the box. Or perhaps outside the gallows.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.