Life on death row, kind of a cake walk.

[lone wolf]

Where does the death penalty violate the Charter?

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

It could be argued just as effectively that a lifetime in prison is a violation too.

 

[countryboy]

Supreme Court has never made any laws, that is not their function. It is up to Parliament to pass laws.

However, it is Supreme Court’s duty to see if any law passed by the Parliament is in accordance with the Charter. If it is not, then Supreme Court will strike it down. That is what happened in the case of abortion and gay marriage (and what is likely to happen if Parliament ever legalizes death penalty, I think chances are very high that Supreme Court will declare that death penalty violates the Charter).

You keep bringing up the death penalty...is that indicative of some sort of subliminal "death wish?"

I realize that you think the Charter is like the "ultimate word of God", but I don't. It was crafted by humans and thus, is imperfect. I'm also progressive enough to realize that if changes to something so sacred as the Charter need to be done, then they should be done.

The thought of judges overriding what the people want (through the legislation of their duly-elected representatives) is not something I agree with. In fact, if we had an elected Senate, we would have 2 levels of elected representation that would give thoughtful consideration to any legislation and that is a good "margin of safety" in my opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep, that statement alone certainly disqualifires him as any kind of expert on criminal law.

Hey, I never claimed to be be expert on criminal law. And since we are discussing of death penalty here, any murder that may possibly be eligible for death penalty has to be cold blooded, preplanned murder.

At least in USA, I think they have to show premeditation, for it to be eligible for death penalty. We are not discussing murder in general here, we are discussing it with reference to death penalty.

 

[countryboy]

Well, yes. But here we are talking in the context of death penalty. Any murder deserving of death penalty is always preplanned (or first degree).

Now I'm getting close to confusion again. You just said "Any murder deserving of death penalty is always preplanned (or first degree)" so does that mean you are in favor of the death penalty for first degree murder? That's how I'm reading it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You keep bringing up the death penalty...is that indicative of some sort of subliminal "death wish?"

I realize that you think the Charter is like the "ultimate word of God", but I don't. It was crafted by humans and thus, is imperfect. I'm also progressive enough to realize that if changes to something so sacred as the Charter need to be done, then they should be done.

And just how do you propose to do that? Amending Charter is very difficult; any change has to be approved by federal government and by all the provinces. Which means that Harper cannot amend the Charter by a simple majority in the Parliament, the amendment will be dead on arrival in the provinces where Conservatives do not have the government.

So any amendment to the Charter must have a widespread support in the country, probably Liberals and NDP must support it as well, or it won’t get ratified.

It is easy to say, amend the Charter, it is very difficult to actually do so.

The thought of judges overriding what the people want (through the legislation of their duly-elected representatives) is not something I agree with. In fact, if we had an elected Senate, we would have 2 levels of elected representation that would give thoughtful consideration to any legislation and that is a good "margin of safety" in my opinion.

Elected senate won’t change a thing as far as Supreme Court is concerned. Supreme Court will still have the authority to overturn laws passed by the Parliament, like they do in USA.

 

[countryboy]

Where does the death penalty violate the Charter?



It could be argued just as effectively that a lifetime in prison is a violation too.

I have read the Charter and basically, there are a lot of things that could be argued back and forth, for a long time. In theory, it's a wonderful document but in reality, it's a "blank cheque" for the legal profession to argue anything and everything.

We might get to the point - where Canada becomes "legally dysfunctional" - to consider revoking the Charter, or at least giving it a good review so that it doesn't hold up the process of living.

 

[JLM]

I think we already have enough "experts" on criminal law in Canada...in fact, too many. Too many criminal trials end up as a "performance" to see which side can outfox the other with legal tricks, technicalities, and other flim-flam tactics. "Right" and "wrong" seem to get left behind in many cases.

I'd like to see the laws and procedures simplified to be more effective. In other words, to help prevent crime and keep criminals off the streets. Rehabilitation of criminals is important too, but not at the expense of the public's safety.

This emphasis on "human rights" is all well and good...I'd just like to see it applied more fairly and consistently, across the board, to include the public and the potential victims of crimes.

Until some has enough balls to limit a lawyer's role to that of seeing a person gets a fair trial only, it will continue to be a circus. If Trudeau had done that instead of this F*****g bill of rights we'd be a lot better off today and the streets would be a lot safer.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now I'm getting close to confusion again. You just said "Any murder deserving of death penalty is always preplanned (or first degree)" so does that mean you are in favor of the death penalty for first degree murder? That's how I'm reading it.

Here I am talking of what happens in USA (or what used to happen in Canada when we had the death penalty). While we don’t have death penalty here (and I am opposed to death penalty, no exceptions), USA does have death penalty, and so did we until about 25-30 years ago.

 

[countryboy]

And just how do you propose to do that? Amending Charter is very difficult; any change has to be approved by federal government and by all the provinces. Which means that Harper cannot amend the Charter by a simple majority in the Parliament, the amendment will be dead on arrival in the provinces where Conservatives do not have the government.

So any amendment to the Charter must have a widespread support in the country, probably Liberals and NDP must support it as well, or it won’t get ratified.

It is easy to say, amend the Charter, it is very difficult to actually do so.

Elected senate won’t change a thing as far as Supreme Court is concerned. Supreme Court will still have the authority to overturn laws passed by the Parliament, like they do in USA.

"It is easy to say, amend the Charter, it is very difficult to actually do so."

Well by gosh, if it was easy I suppose anybody could do it, anytime. My point is this: If we have a law that is either "wrong" (in the opinion of the majority), or causing major problems in the rest of the "system", why would we not want to change it?

It sounds to me as if you're treating it like some dictatorial ruling that cannot be touched. I think a democracy allows for those changes to be made, no matter how difficult they might be. Are we (the citizens) not still running this country?

 

[countryboy]

And just how do you propose to do that? Amending Charter is very difficult; any change has to be approved by federal government and by all the provinces. Which means that Harper cannot amend the Charter by a simple majority in the Parliament, the amendment will be dead on arrival in the provinces where Conservatives do not have the government.

So any amendment to the Charter must have a widespread support in the country, probably Liberals and NDP must support it as well, or it won’t get ratified.

It is easy to say, amend the Charter, it is very difficult to actually do so.




Elected senate won’t change a thing as far as Supreme Court is concerned. Supreme Court will still have the authority to overturn laws passed by the Parliament, like they do in USA.

"Which means that Harper cannot amend the Charter by a simple majority in the Parliament, the amendment will be dead on arrival in the provinces where Conservatives do not have the government."

That's pretty short term thinking...unless you and other are so satisfied with Mr. Harper's government that you are anticipating them to be in power for a long, long time.

I was thinking perhaps on more of a longer term basis, but hey, if you would like to speed up the process of Charter Review, I'm all for it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I have read the Charter and basically, there are a lot of things that could be argued back and forth, for a long time. In theory, it's a wonderful document but in reality, it's a "blank cheque" for the legal profession to argue anything and everything.

Sure, the lawyers may argue anything and everything (that is their job), that doesn’t mean that Supreme Court will agree with everything they say.

Specifically, when it comes to death penalty, I would be very surprised indeed, if SC did not rule that death penalty violates the Charter (if ever a case goes to the Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely as of now).

We might get to the point - where Canada becomes "legally dysfunctional" - to consider revoking the Charter, or at least giving it a good review so that it doesn't hold up the process of living.

Canada is not ‘legally dysfunctional’, Canada works fine as it is. Canadian legal system works very well, with occasional glitches (which can be expected in every legal system).

 

[JLM]

Well, yes. But here we are talking in the context of death penalty. Any murder deserving of death penalty is always preplanned (or first degree).

"Always" in my mind is one of the most dangerous words. First rule is there is an exception to every rule.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"It is easy to say, amend the Charter, it is very difficult to actually do so."

Well by gosh, if it was easy I suppose anybody could do it, anytime. My point is this: If we have a law that is either "wrong" (in the opinion of the majority), or causing major problems in the rest of the "system", why would we not want to change it?

It sounds to me as if you're treating it like some dictatorial ruling that cannot be touched. I think a democracy allows for those changes to be made, no matter how difficult they might be. Are we (the citizens) not still running this country?

If we have a law that majority thinks is wrong, it still cannot be changed by amending the Charter. It is so difficult to amend the Charter that a majority of Canadians wanting to amend it won’t do it. An overwhelming majority must support amending it, then the amendment has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

When even the tiny province like PEI can hold up the amendment in the face of support by the rest of the country, it is clear that support for any amendment must be overwhelming and widespread.

Indeed, that is what happened with Meech Lake Accord, it was killed by two tiny provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba.

So again, it is easy to talk of amending the Charter, it is virtually impossible to do so.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Always" in my mind is one of the most dangerous words. First rule is there is an exception to every rule.

Point taken, JLM. Never say never. However, I don't know if there has been even a single case in USA where death penalty was handed down without there being premeditation.

 

[lone wolf]

The beauty about being on an ignore list is in poking holes in his floor....

How doesn't a life sentence violate CRF?

 

[countryboy]

If we have a law that majority thinks is wrong, it still cannot be changed by amending the Charter. It is so difficult to amend the Charter that a majority of Canadians wanting to amend it won’t do it. An overwhelming majority must support amending it, then the amendment has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

When even the tiny province like PEI can hold up the amendment in the face of support by the rest of the country, it is clear that support for any amendment must be overwhelming and widespread.

Indeed, that is what happened with Meech Lake Accord, it was killed by two tiny provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba.

So again, it is easy to talk of amending the Charter, it is virtually impossible to do so.

You make it sound like "the iron fist of Stalin" that we have in place. Virtually impossible? How the hell did we allow that to happen?

 

[TenPenny]

And since we are discussing of death penalty here, any murder that may possibly be eligible for death penalty has to be cold blooded, preplanned murder.

I define murder as the unwarranted killing of another human being, so you're in the wrong.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Isn't that the truth. Though, I must admit, here in Canada we don't seem to get as carried away as they do in the US where murder trials, especially, tend to become three ring circus with one attorney trying to outdo the other to the benefit of none.

The reason for that is death penalty, Mowich. Most of the trials that turn into a three ring circus (like the O.J.Simpson trial) involve death penalty.

 

[Francis2004]

I have read the Charter and basically, there are a lot of things that could be argued back and forth, for a long time. In theory, it's a wonderful document but in reality, it's a "blank cheque" for the legal profession to argue anything and everything.

We might get to the point - where Canada becomes "legally dysfunctional" - to consider revoking the Charter, or at least giving it a good review so that it doesn't hold up the process of living.

Well CB, 30 years in place and every law student in Canada is educated with the charter..

Not to say the least of our bright lawyers that were already practising law waiting to pounce on that document..

Can you point to any of it's legally dysfunctional use ? Point to it being used as a blank check ? It has been 30 years..

If as you say that Charter doesn't stand the test of time, what legal document does ?

Personally I think your wrong..

 

[lone wolf]

Lawyers make the rules to keep lawyers busy, giving lawyers a skim off every transaction and making lawyers a self-replicating parasite. Freedom begins with a lawyer in the crosshairs and a finger on the trigger.