Life on death row, kind of a cake walk.

[SirJosephPorter]

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?

That is the case in many countries, it is virtually impossible to amend the constitution. In USA, an amendment needs the approval of the Senate, the House and then 3/4th of the states must approve it. In practice it is very difficult to get a constructional amendment passed, it must have overwhelming, widespread support, not just the majority support.

I think the last constitutional amendment to pass was the one lowering the voting age to 18 (from 21). It was passed in 1971 (I was in USA at that time). But I don’t think any constitutional amendment has made out of Senate and House after 1971.

It is only right and proper that constitution is very difficult to amend. Constitution enumerates certain basic principles such as equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Such principles must not be at the mercy of the majority. While majority may pass the laws, it rightly needs a supermajority to amend the constitution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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

Personally I think your wrong..

Francis, I think Charter is the best document of its kind in the world, certainly much better than the outdated Bill of Rights.

 

[countryboy]

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..

Francis, Here's what I said - We might get to the point - where Canada becomes "legally dysfunctional"... It was a hypothetical statement, made in the context of what do we do if a law or statute no longer fits or works in accordance with our collective needs.

As far as the blank cheque (check) issue goes, I was referring to the myriad of legal battles that have since been fought, using the Charter as the basis of them. Everything from drunk driving charges to murder have come under the Charter's influence, and the "blank cheque" statement was meant to illustrate how many lawyers have profited from its existence.

I have no doubt that you think I'm wrong...but I think I'm right. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing here. We're all entitled to our opinion, right? (After all, it's in the Charter)... :-|

 

[countryboy]

Francis, I think Charter is the best document of its kind in the world, certainly much better than the outdated Bill of Rights.

But don't forget, the Bill of Rights was likely the greatest innovation since sliced bread at time of its inception.

Things always change, and we must have the open minds and courage necessary to change with them.

(Gee, that sounds like an original quotation!) :lol:

 

[Francis2004]

Francis, Here's what I said - We might get to the point - where Canada becomes "legally dysfunctional"... It was a hypothetical statement, made in the context of what do we do if a law or statute no longer fits or works in accordance with our collective needs.

As far as the blank cheque (check) issue goes, I was referring to the myriad of legal battles that have since been fought, using the Charter as the basis of them. Everything from drunk driving charges to murder have come under the Charter's influence, and the "blank cheque" statement was meant to illustrate how many lawyers have profited from its existence.

I have no doubt that you think I'm wrong...but I think I'm right. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing here. We're all entitled to our opinion, right? (After all, it's in the Charter)... :-|

My point CB was, there has to be some past documents that you can point too that can show why you believe that.. 30 years of the Charter would show cracks in it to substantiate your points..

Pretty simple concept..

Drunk Driving charges were passing thru the system way before the Charter..

The Charter was not meant to fix all the wrongs in the Canadian Court system but to protect basic rights.

 

[countryboy]

My point CB was, there has to be some past documents that you can point too that can show why you believe that.. 30 years of the Charter would show cracks in it to substantiate your points..

Pretty simple concept..

Drunk Driving charges were passing thru the system way before the Charter..

The Charter was not meant to fix all the wrongs in the Canadian Court system but to protect basic rights.

I have no problem with the Charter protecting basic rights. That's just common sense. Keep in mind that I belleve the discussion (I'm participating in a discussion, not a debate, in my opinion) is about the death penalty, and possible alternatives to such a thing in dealing with the crime of murder.

This issue of the Charter was raised by someone else and I got "sucked into" a discusson on that. Oops, that was an error on my part.

So Francis, l suggest we not turn this into a legal debate. I'm not pointing to any documents, etc. to support what I think about the Charter's influence here.

As this discussion "ratcheted up", I made some observations about the interpretations and uses of the Charter - how it has been used to influence many rulings on very serious cases. If you would like to consider that as "anecdotal information", that's fine because that's exactly what it is. It is a general opinion based on various readings of things that have been going on for many years.

My general observation (not a binding, valid, legal point beyond a shadow of a doubt...just an observation or perhaps more accurately, an opinion) is that many legal processes have been delayed or at least have taken extra time to implement due to various intrepretations of the Charter.

I further stated that IF the use of the Charter gets to the point where people in the legal system (judges, lawyers) are using it to to the extent that criminals end up not being punished appropriately for their crimes, then perhaps it would be time to review the Charter itself and its function.

I note that, under the section entitled "Legal Rights", point no. 12 states: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." I assume that is referring to a person charged with a crime such as murder, for example. "Cruel and unusual treatment" can certainly be a matter of opinion, right?

I'm wondering if there is a corresponding point referring to citizens that don't commit a crime like that. In other words, where does it say that one of our fundamental freedoms is to be safe from criminals who might choose to kill you? I looked through the section on Fundamental Freedoms but didn't see it there. It could be hiding in there somewhere and I certainly stand to be corrected if I missed it.

The bottom line is...I don't believe for a moment that any document, law, constitution, statute or anything else created by humans is perfect and/or should not be questioned or challenged for ongoing validity.

By the way, I wonder how atheists feel about the first line of the Charter (after the title), which states the following: "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:..." Could be another little annoying glitch in the Charter...I don't know...just discussin' things here. ;-)

 

[JLM]

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.

I believe when Karla Fay Tucker stuck the ice pick in the guys head it was kind of a whim on the spur of the moment.

 

[JLM]

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.

Maybe that fact itself brings into question hypocrisy itself in the Charter.

 

[TenPenny]

By the way, I wonder how atheists feel about the first line of the Charter (after the title), which states the following: "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:..." Could be another little annoying glitch in the Charter...I don't know...just discussin' things here.

It's rather hard to argue that statement, since Canada was founded upon the priniciples that we inherited from our political roots.

 

[countryboy]

It's rather hard to argue that statement, since Canada was founded upon the priniciples that we inherited from our political roots.

Yeah, I know...I was just curious about how the atheists might feel about that statement appearing in the Charter. After all, it didn't have to be there, did it?

 

[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).

Not to mention those committed during the commission of another crime.

 

[Francis2004]

I note that, under the section entitled "Legal Rights", point no. 12 states: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." I assume that is referring to a person charged with a crime such as murder, for example. "Cruel and unusual treatment" can certainly be a matter of opinion, right?

OK I get it.. You got taken in and cornered.. Been there, done that..

As for cruel and and unusual treatment or punishment.. Of course it is a matter of opinion.. Granted most of us have similar opinions that vary closely together.. But at times you find some who don't and they maybe on either side of the criminal / victim spectrum..

One could say, death quickly is too good for that basturd.. Or one could say it doesn't come quick enough..

One could say, one would rather die quickly then rot in jail.. Or one could wish to stay in jail and hope in his mind the system sets him free..

All opinion..

 

[countryboy]

OK I get it.. You got taken in and cornered.. Been there, done that..

As for cruel and and unusual treatment or punishment.. Of course it is a matter of opinion.. Granted most of us have similar opinions that vary closely together.. But at times you find some who don't and they maybe on either side of the criminal / victim spectrum..

One could say, death quickly is too good for that basturd.. Or one could say it doesn't come quick enough..

One could say, one would rather die quickly then rot in jail.. Or one could wish to stay in jail and hope in his mind the system sets him free..

All opinion..

Yep, exactly. I will say that this forum is a very interesting way to find out what really is on people's minds though. Could be that "anonimity brings out the honesty" in opinions. Nothing wrong with that.

Anyway, all very interesting discussion and I look forward to more.

 

[JLM]

"Francis, I think Charter is the best document of its kind in the world, certainly much better than the outdated Bill of Rights."- Surely not better than the Magna Carta!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As far as the blank cheque (check) issue goes, I was referring to the myriad of legal battles that have since been fought, using the Charter as the basis of them. Everything from drunk driving charges to murder have come under the Charter's influence, and the "blank cheque" statement was meant to illustrate how many lawyers have profited from its existence.

It is the right of every citizen to mount a Charter challenge, countryboy. Anybody has that right. However, Charter challenge is very expensive; it is not an easy undertaking. Besides, many Charter challenges fail.

So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think. It is a very valuable repository of our individual rights, which can many times come to the rescue of the underdog, rescue of the David against the Goliath.

Charter serves a very useful purpose. In my opinion, Canada was not a complete democracy before the Charter. Anyway, the last time I saw, about 70% of Canadians love the Charter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But don't forget, the Bill of Rights was likely the greatest innovation since sliced bread at time of its inception.

Things always change, and we must have the open minds and courage necessary to change with them.

(Gee, that sounds like an original quotation!) :lol:

Quite so, countryboy. The Bill of Rights is a unique document; it was very progressive, almost revolutionary for the times. It also formed the basis for the Charter of Rights.

However, Bill of Rights was the best that could be done in those days. By today’s standards, it is very much a flawed document. Thus Bill of Rights permitted slavery; they needed a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery. Bill of Rights also did not guarantee the vote for women, individual states were free to deny vote to women if they so chose. Again, they needed a constitutional amendment to give vote to women.

So I have nothing but admiration for Bill of Rights and for the American Founding Fathers who came up with it. At the same time, by today’s standards, it is very much a flawed document, and Charter of Rights is a much superior document.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I note that, under the section entitled "Legal Rights", point no. 12 states: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." I assume that is referring to a person charged with a crime such as murder, for example. "Cruel and unusual treatment" can certainly be a matter of opinion, right?

You spotted that, did you? Good for you. If Supreme Court ever gets a death penalty case (which as I said, is highly unlikely as of now), I think there is a very strong probability that the Court will declare that death penalty constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and will declare that it is against the Charter.

By the way, I wonder how atheists feel about the first line of the Charter (after the title), which states the following: "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:..." Could be another little annoying glitch in the Charter...I don't know...just discussin' things here. ;-)

Well, one can’t have everything. I would have preferred that language not to be there, but other than that, Charter is a splendid document. It would be crazy to oppose such a document, which enumerates the various fundamental rights enjoyed by Canadians (and which was responsible for throwing out restrictions on abortion and legalizing gay marriage), just because there is a vague reference to God in the preamble (which does not constitute part of the main body and hence is mostly irrelevant anyway).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I believe when Karla Fay Tucker stuck the ice pick in the guys head it was kind of a whim on the spur of the moment.

She was a multiple murderer, JLM. A multiple murderer can hardly be said to act without premeditation. That way, probably Jack the Ripper also decided to dismember the prostitutes on the spur of moment. I assume there must have been a few prostitutes which he did not dismember, he simply had sex with them.

But the way Jack the Ripper or Karla Fay Tucker went about stalking his (or her) victims, the way he lured them into his trap and kill them, very much shows premeditation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Francis, I think Charter is the best document of its kind in the world, certainly much better than the outdated Bill of Rights."- Surely not better than the Magna Carta!

JLM again, Magna Carta is a very good document, same as the Bill of Rights. However, the framers of Magna Carta had the outlook of 1000 years ago. OK, they were probably liberals, progressives of that time, but their reach could not go to the extent of equal rights for everybody, freedom of religion etc.

One could plausibly argue that Magna Carta constitutes the beginning of Democracy (if one discounts ancient Greece). However, by today’s standard, it is very much a flawed document.

Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, these documents form important stepping stones, important landmarks towards the march of Democracy. However, they are sorely lacking by today’s standards.

 

[countryboy]

You spotted that, did you? Good for you. If Supreme Court ever gets a death penalty case (which as I said, is highly unlikely as of now), I think there is a very strong probability that the Court will declare that death penalty constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and will declare that it is against the Charter.

Well gee, thanks, SirJP. In spite of my backward upbringing and somewhat conservative country lifestyle, I have been known to pick out a few salient points in a document from time to time. ;-)