Sounds reasonable to me.
At least it shows a semblance of civility. (We have other barbaric practises, though).Also reasonable, let the murderers duke it out with other murderers. lol
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
At least it shows a semblance of civility. (We have other barbaric practises, though).Also reasonable, let the murderers duke it out with other murderers. lol
Sounds reasonable to me.
Also reasonable, let the murderers duke it out with other murderers. lol
Like Gladiators? Hmm...it has possibilities...
Trudeau's ugly head rears up again with his damn Charter.
However that section does not refer to criminals (or murderers) otherwise the word 'liberty' would mean all criminals should be walking free.
Of course death penalty won’t come back; we are simply engaged here in idle chat. There is a strong probability that it violates the Charter, and Supreme Court will crack down hard on any attempts to bring back the noose.
Besides, the last opinion poll I saw showed overwhelming opposition to death penalty in Canada (it is a different story in USA). So I don’t see death penalty coming back, at least not for a generation.
SirJP - I'm curious as to how there is a strong probability that the death penalty would violate the Charter. I've read it, but I don't remember seeing any direct reference to this. I could have missed it though...
The section refers to all the citizens, criminals and non criminals alike. Everybody has the right to life. As to liberty, sure everybody has the right to liberty, but that right can be curtailed in the case of criminals.
All the rights are not equal; some are more equal than others. Right to life is the most fundamental of them all. Liberty is conditional upon a person not committing a crime. As to security, I don’t even know what that means.
But when the Charter lists the right to life, liberty and security, I think these rights here are listed in decreasing order of importance, they are not all equal.
I thought that is what we are discussing here, countryboy. The Charter lists the right to life, and I think there is strong probability that the courts will rule that death penalty violates the right to life.
Well, they are.. they're walking freely within their cell. ;-) I believe there is a section on "Principles of Fundamental Justice" that provides exceptions for the good of society.
OK, thank you for that...
You mentioned, "As to liberty, sure everybody has the right to liberty, but that right can be curtailed in the case of criminals." A couple of questions/points...
Could not the same be said for the one in front of that? (Life?)
Also, if the murder victim's right to Life is taken away by a murderer, could it be that the murderer's similar right be "revoked?" That is essentially what happens with your interpretation of Liberty.
Is it the court that would make the ultimate decision as to what overriding impact the Charter would have on any decision made by Parliament in this regard?
I find it all quite interesting, but there seems to be a lot of leeway here in how the Charter could/might be interpreted...
Quite so, the right to liberty is not absolute, the right to life is. That is why I think that the right to life, liberty and security are listed in decreasing order of importance.
Courts can interpret it in anyway they want, countryboy. However, the right to life is generally considered to be most important of all rights, perhaps even more important than the right to free speech and the freedom of worship, freedom of religion.
I think that is why there is a strong probability that courts will declare death penalty to be against the Charter. But note that I did not say there is a certainty; there is always room of interpretation. However, I think it is highly unlikely. I for one would be very surprised if courts permit the death penalty in Canada.
OK, thanks. Of course, it makes sense that the right to life is considered to be most important...without that one, none of the other ones would have much meaning!
There is one burning issue that may be being overlooked here. When we were young we were taught that with rights and privileges, there comes responsibility. What responsibility has the likes of Olson and Homolka shown? They've obviously waived most rights. I think their right should be limited to the right of a fair trial AND THAT IS IT until found not guilty.
I agree with you but I think this is what we have to live with as a country that values human rights. There are pros and cons to everything. China does not have these rights and in Singapore, you cannot chew gum. So overall, I think we are lucky even though we have to pay approx. $300/day per person (2006 numbers) to keep these guys alive in prison.
Polls can be mislieading though. Switzerland had a national poll to see if the people would accept the installation (spelling?) of Minarets on mosques. The poll showed the majority would accept it, so in turn the federal gov. decided to hold a nation wide vote. The results came back with an outright rejection, almost the complete opposite of what the poll showed.
The media went around the country and asked people how the polls could turn out to be almost the opposite of what the vote showed. Several people answered by saying 'you want us to say what you want to hear.'
SJP. Perhaps the last opinion poll for the death penalty people were thinking the same thing. That's the thing with a public poll, people can see what your answer is, but on a ballot box, it's a whole different thing.
The media went around the country and asked people how the polls could turn out to be almost the opposite of what the vote showed. Several people answered by saying 'you want us to say what you want to hear.'
SJP. Perhaps the last opinion poll for the death penalty people were thinking the same thing. That's the thing with a public poll, people can see what your answer is, but on a ballot box, it's a whole different thing.