Guess not since 2007. Gov. Paterson will be leaving office soon.
You are absolutely right. I did not know they scrapped it.
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
You are absolutely right. I did not know they scrapped it.
Sure some day things might change. But they will not any time soon. There is no push to bring back the death penalty, and I don't see anybody clamouring for it any time soon. Canadian population, the Parliament and the courts are against it.
Last edited:
Guess not since 2007. Gov. Paterson will be leaving office soon.
Death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by new York Supreme Court in 2004. It had nothing to do with the current governor. Gov. Pataki signed it into law.
And quite right too. Death penalty is a human rights issue and totally unsuitable subject for a referendum. Same as gay marriage.
They did not scrap it, Supreme Court struck it down.
I think New York legislature has always had a majority for death penalty. The problem has always been the Governor. Legislature would pass a death penalty bill and the Governor would veto it.
Until Pataki, he supported death penalty. Then New York got death penalty (I always say, New York is too conservative for Canada). In 2004, Supreme Court struck it down.
I assume there still is a majority for death penalty in the legislature. I am not sure how the governor feels about it.
If not the people, who exactly should decide these things? And what would qualify as a "suitable subject" for a referendum?
Issues of human rights should be decided by the courts and the Parliament, as the issue of gay marriage was.
An issue which concerns a small number of individuals is not a suitable subject for a referendum. That is giving majority a veto over minority rights. Thus, abortion only affect women of child bearing age, gay marriage affects only homosexuals, death penalty affects only murderers. These are not suitable subjects for a referendum.
A proper subject for referendum would be something that affects the entire population. E.g. should we have proportional representation, should we privatize the health care etc.
You responded to it - I'm not sure you answered it.............:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
yes, I totally agree with the reasons behind these decisions, as referendums would bring in all sorts of
religious, hateful, biggoted, and other emotional reasons,
and not the fair and logical reasons these things should be decided upon.
Again, how do you figure this..
Parliament is based on us peasants voting..
Hence the Government by the people.
Court judges ( federal supreme at minimum ) are appointed by the government which by above we chose..
In essence an election is a referendum of a sort at least in Canada.. :canada:
Just because the Government does not put each issue before us as an individual referendum, does not mean we did not have a choice..
Each time we vote we essentially choose many of these issues at hand.. Like it or not we ar making some choices by party platform.
I'm of two minds about this one. I think these matters could go to a referendum, limited only to those who could prove they have a valid interest in the matter. There, THAT should satisfy everyone.
that's true, but still would not want to see referendum
on the death penalty, or any other situation that is
strictly an emotional reaction to a problem.
To answer both these at once is simple..
I agree with talloola that it would not be wise to have referendums ( from private individuals or Governments ) on emotional issues. Having been thru one I have to admit it was not pretty..
JLM, referendums such as California has in place only brings Government legislation to a standstill wasting time and money, as every voter has a vested interest.
Gawd, you must be frustrated when things don't go your way. It's a good thing you have an outlet (like the Forum) in which to pontificate or I fear you'd damage a vital part or two. Have you every actually had a discussion with someone, or does "it" always consist of a dissertation of your opinion, in the guise of "the word from on high?"
Quite so Francis, but that is how decisions are reached in a representative democracy. People elect the legislature to make tough decisions like that.
Particularly when it comes to something as complicated as constitution and the Charter, I don’t think it is right to leave it to ordinary person to interpret it. These are very involved legal documents and only legal mind will be able to interpret it properly. That is why it is left up to the courts.
As to the MPs, they should be able to reach a proper decision without people trying to second guess them. If people don’t like a particular MP, they can always vote him out at the next election. But they voted him in, let him do his job.
Plus, there is no provision for binding referendums in Canadian constitution anyway. Courts are perfectly free to ignore any referendum results, so it will be an exercise in futility, in addition to it being wrong.