Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Wild Bill, Do you believe we should do away with the Constitution? Not at all! If a Constitution was accepted by the majority of people then to me its valid. By the same lights, any and all amendments would have to meet the same criteria. Unfortunately, our Constitution has a very poor provision for amendment, with parameters that in effect are impossible to achieve in the real world. It is cast in stone, the way it is, for better or worse. Of course, there are those who will immediately argue over the actual parameters to amendment but the fact remains in the real world they can never happen. So we don't have to worry about any amendments. That being said, I don't recall capital punishment or anything to do with legal sentences being in our Constitution. Perhaps I missed it. Could you be so good as to point it out? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Unfortunately, our Constitution has a very poor provision for amendment, with parameters that in effect are impossible to achieve in the real world. So I take it you think that constitutions should be especially easy to amend? Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Unfortunately, our Constitution has a very poor provision for amendment, with parameters that in effect are impossible to achieve in the real world. That's not entirely true; the constitution has been amended a number of times since the current amending formula was implemented in 1982. That being said, I don't recall capital punishment or anything to do with legal sentences being in our Constitution. There are many clauses in the Charter relating to sentencing. Captial punnishment isn't specifically mentioned; however, the protection from "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" accorded to everyone by S.12 might have an impact on the debate about death sentencing. [ed.: +] Edited March 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Would Wild Bill be so wild about the voice of the majority if was because of that voice and other circumstances that he ended up on death row? Well, first of all I don't think you're making a real world point. It is very unlikely that I would end up falsely convicted on death row. What's more, I don't believe that my fellow citizens would vote for a legal system that executes people for trivial offences! We are not Saudi Arabia, after all! Nor are we ever likely to become such. Nothing I have seen suggests that anyone is advocating capital punishment to be applied willy nilly. Or that we would go to a ridiculous extreme. Remember, laws come about through a political process. They may be refined and sadly, even ignored by judges but still, there has to be some political desire for a law in the first place. Our problem is that too often laws do not reflect the values of the majority. Sometimes, as in the case of our repressive drug laws, especially as regards marijuana, they are expressly contrary to the views of the majority of Canadian voters. Whatever, in an ideal system, before a law could be put to the people for approval we would expect it to have a great deal of debate and scrutiny. I have enough faith in my fellow citizens as a group that they would make a considered choice. The only possible alternative is to assume that the majority of citizens are far stupider than I am and should not be allowed to make their own choice. I refuse to do that! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) It is very unlikely that I would end up falsely convicted on death row. I couldn't help but smile when I read that because I had a feeling that was exactly the response you would give me. Don't you find your claim rather presumptuous? People do find themselves falsely accused and falsely conviced of murder. If one person can be, any of us can. What's more, I don't believe that my fellow citizens would vote for a legal system that executes people for trivial offences! Why not? You see, not only do I still fail to understand why we need to execute a certain subset of people, I also can't tell how you're setting the parameters that define that group. Can the certainty of a conviction ever be 100%? How close to absolute certainty is close enough to warrant a death sentence? And why kill those on one side of the benchmark, but let live in prison potentially for the rest of their lives those on the other? [ed.: +] Edited March 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Whatever, in an ideal system, before a law could be put to the people for approval we would expect it to have a great deal of debate and scrutiny. I have enough faith in my fellow citizens as a group that they would make a considered choice. Then you have far too much faith. Quote
dre Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Who decides that a minority view is right and should prevail? Who decides what is a valid expert opinion? I ask again. Who decides? You? Me? CharterofRights? Charles McVeety? Politicians that we elect... and the courts. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 ....however, the protection from "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" accorded to everyone by S.12 might have an impact on the debate about death sentencing. I would find death less "cruel and unusual..." than life in prison with no hope of ever getting out, and I'm sure many would agree. So really, that's subjective, and doesn't in and of itself prohibit the death penalty. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 So really, that... doesn't in and of itself prohibit the death penalty. I didn't say it did. Quote
dre Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Not at all! If a Constitution was accepted by the majority of people then to me its valid. By the same lights, any and all amendments would have to meet the same criteria. Unfortunately, our Constitution has a very poor provision for amendment, with parameters that in effect are impossible to achieve in the real world. It is cast in stone, the way it is, for better or worse. Of course, there are those who will immediately argue over the actual parameters to amendment but the fact remains in the real world they can never happen. So we don't have to worry about any amendments. That being said, I don't recall capital punishment or anything to do with legal sentences being in our Constitution. Perhaps I missed it. Could you be so good as to point it out? Section 12 of the charter deals with legal sentences. A few sentences have been struck down based on this clause already, although the court has never ruled on whether capital punishment is "cruel and unusual" or not. Seems pretty tough for anyone to make the argument that killing someone who doesnt want to die isnt cruel. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 So I take it you think that constitutions should be especially easy to amend? Who said that? Not me! Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe that amendments should always take some effort, to make sure that they are not frivolous. As far as our amending formula, I think in many areas the bar is set just too high! Especially in any area where you need Quebec's consent. Their culture and their needs tend to be so different from that of the rest of Canada that they are not likely to give it. Myself, I would like to see the right to property specifically spelled out in our Constitution or Charter of Rights. However, that's just me. I am well aware that the majority of Canadians couldn't care less and thus I have to accept that. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 That's not entirely true; the constitution has been amended a number of times since the current amending formula was implemented in 1982. There are many clauses in the Charter relating to sentencing. Captial punnishment isn't specifically mentioned; however, the protection from "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" accorded to everyone by S.12 might have an impact on the debate about death sentencing. [ed.: +] Yes, indeed it might! Thank you for pointing that out for me. As far as amendments, were there any of substance? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Who said that? Not me! Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe that amendments should always take some effort, to make sure that they are not frivolous. Which they do. As far as our amending formula, I think in many areas the bar is set just too high! Such as? Especially in any area where you need Quebec's consent. Their culture and their needs tend to be so different from that of the rest of Canada that they are not likely to give it. Again, such as? Quebec isn't that much different from the rest of the country that they can't agree on workable amendments that make sense (and as Bambino says, amendments have happened since 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada#Post-1982_amendments_to_the_Constitution Myself, I would like to see the right to property specifically spelled out in our Constitution or Charter of Rights. A right to property in the face of the state? What for? That could result in important projects being completely unworkable. Edited March 3, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 I couldn't help but smile when I read that because I had a feeling that was exactly the response you would give me. Don't you find your claim rather presumptuous? People do find themselves falsely accused and falsely conviced of murder. If one person can be, any of us can. Why not? You see, not only do I still fail to understand why we need to execute a certain subset of people, I also can't tell how you're setting the parameters that define that group. Can the certainty of a conviction ever be 100%? How close to absolute certainty is close enough to warrant a death sentence? And why kill those on one side of the benchmark, but let live in prison potentially for the rest of their lives those on the other? [ed.: +] For about the zillionth time, I am not advocating a compulsory death sentence! Although it has been decades since the wrongful conviction of Steven Truscott and we have had the advent of modern DNA forensics I suppose it is possible for a wrongful conviction. Particularly if the "system" is feeling political pressure to come up with ANYONE to settle a case! I'm talking only in cases of beyond any reasonable doubt and of heinous value. Paul Bernardo would be one. That case out in BC were a serial killer murdered a number of women, mostly prostitutes and aboriginals and feed their bodies to his pigs to try to remove the bodies from discovery would be another. Perhaps Charles Ing as well. Yet again, If we had consecutive sentences and true life sentences it might bring down those numbers of Canadians who have lost faith in our justice system. I know I could accept such! While we're at it, maybe something in legislation to prevent any more "deals" such as that given to Karla Homolka. In her case, we've now allowed a psychopath to live freely in another country. I guess as long as she doesn't kill again in Canada our justice officials will have no reason to be embarrassed. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Yet again, If we had consecutive sentences We do: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2011_5/page-1.html It simply doesn't apply to cases that started before. Also, IIRC, 25 to life recipients spend, on average, over 30 years in prison. That's a long time. Those considered dangerous are put away forever. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Not at all! If a Constitution was accepted by the majority of people then to me its valid. By the same lights, any and all amendments would have to meet the same criteria. The Constitution wasn't even signed by one of the most populous provinces in the country, but that's not my point. The Constitution may contradict the majority opinion about any given issue. Should the majority opinion then prevail over the Constitution? Quote
Smallc Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 The Constitution wasn't even signed by one of the most populous provinces in the country, Actually, it was, in 1867. The 1982 signature wasn't necessary. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Actually, it was, in 1867. The 1982 signature wasn't necessary. I know it wasn't necessary, but that's not my point anyway. Quote
Smallc Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 I know it wasn't necessary, but that's not my point anyway. I know Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 The Constitution wasn't even signed by one of the most populous provinces in the country, but that's not my point. The Constitution may contradict the majority opinion about any given issue. Should the majority opinion then prevail over the Constitution? I would say yes! Such documents have to be able to change with the times. I'm sure that the American Constitution had amendments over the decades because the values of the people had changed. Should the minority have been allowed to introduce an Amendment that implemented Prohibition? Should majority opinion not be allowed to get it repealed? Still, if the majority opinion does indeed change I believe the bar to accomplish an amendment should not be so high as to be all but impossible but at the same time it should be enough to ensure that an amendment would take time, with lots of debate and consideration. Finally, it should be put to a referendum of some sort, or at least an important campaign plank. I just can't believe that a bunch of politicians can create an infallible document supposedly based upon the consensus of the people, that has no need to ever change, for centuries without end! Look how much our values have changed over the span of 100 years, or even less. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 So do you believe that any changes to the Constitution should only meet a simple-majority consensus? What about a majority government? Should they be able to amend the Constitution as they see fit? Quote
Smallc Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Still, if the majority opinion does indeed change I believe the bar to accomplish an amendment should not be so high as to be all but impossible but at the same time it should be enough to ensure that an amendment would take time, with lots of debate and consideration. And that's exactly what exists. This is, after all, a federation. As such, most amendments require input from the members of that federation. Quote
dre Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Keep in mind saying that the majority of canadians support the death penalty is a pretty selective reading of recent polling. Even though 2/3's said they supported the death penalty, less than than 50% actually thinks it should be re-instated, and if given the change to choose between a real life sentence and the DP, more people favor life sentences. So all this talk about populist direct democracy VS constitutional indirect democracy is a little premature. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 So do you believe that any changes to the Constitution should only meet a simple-majority consensus? What about a majority government? Should they be able to amend the Constitution as they see fit? The majority government that has 40% of the vote Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 The majority government that has 40% of the vote We're getting there. You need to ease into it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.