The Capital Punishment Debate

[silverbach]

I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

Consequently, it seems that section 7 has something to do with executions. And considering that the supreme court came to that conclusion without even having to get to the second level of this section, being "the principles of fundamental justice", your assesment about this principle is equally wrong.

So, since our supreme court is the last appelate court in Canada, I think I will have to share the opinion of these 9 judges instead of yours.

As far as reproducing 2b) from the Charter, for the benefits of readers in here, you should have reproduced section 1 equally, not to  mention R. c. Keegstra, a major contribution from the supreme court on what you call hate speech laws...again, if the supreme court can live with hate speeches, so will I.

Ne mélangeons pas les pommes avec les oranges, si vous le voulez bien , monsieur Highlander !

 

[48Highlander]

I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

The fact that the supreme court would shelter a fugitive under any circumstances only goes to demonstrate just how gormless our justice system truly is.

Consequently, it seems that section 7 has something to do with executions. And considering that the supreme court came to that conclusion without even having to get to the second level of this section, being "the principles of fundamental justice", your assesment about this principle is equally wrong.

As I have already stated, our judicial system already ignores the actual word and spirit of the Charter through it's endorsement of hate-speech laws.  The fact that the supreme court would further pervert the Charter by using their interpretation of it as a reason to avoid deporting a criminal....that doesn't surprise me in the least.

As far as reproducing 2b) from the Charter, for the benefits of readers in here, you should have reproduced section 1 equally, not to  mention R. c. Keegstra, a major contribution from the supreme court on what you call hate speech laws...again, if the supreme court can live with hate speeches, so will I.

???

Ok, section 1 goes like this:

  1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In other words, if I'm reading that correctly, the law takes precedence over the Charter?  Is that why you wanted me to quote it?  If that's the case then ok, there you go.  I'll also point out that it states "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".  Restrictions on speech cannot be justified in a free society.  The death penalty on the other hand certainly can.

 

[silverbach]

Now, considering that I have made my point and corrected your thinking about section 7 of the Charter, let me ask you the following questions:

1) Since it seems you are an expert in constitutional law, would you be kind enough to tell all of us what is the actual word and spirit of the Charter ?

2) In relation to section 1, you said:

Restrictions on speech cannot be justified in a free society.  The death penalty on the other hand certainly can.

Now, considering that most faculty of laws in canadian university give a 45-hour course only on section 1 of the Charter,

a) explain the Oakes criteria ?
b) please give us your application of Oakes relative to capital punishment...if you can...or was your one-liner simply an unfounded opinion on your part ?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Silverbach,
I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....

 

[silverbach]

yep...but think of the last efforts (Meech) to modify the constitution...that wasn't successful at all, nobody seemed to agree...so everything stayed the way it is since 1982...bottom line is that the constitution itself make it almost impossible to change its sections...I believe some call it democracy !

 

[Soon2binfantry]

But in a way doesn't it seem a bit too old school?

 

[Glorified Ape]

Quote from Silverbach,
I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....

The SCC justices are appointed by the duly elected officials and I don't see a problem with judicial activism so long as it operates within the ideological framework of the society. I'd trust a judge to interpret the law and constitution far more than a political figure.

As for freedom of speech vs. capital punishment - the hate speech laws are rationally related to stopping hate speech, are arguably minimal in their infringement on the rights of the populous, and the detriments (which seem largely overblown by every libertarian out there) can hardly be said to outweigh the benefits. Captial punishment has never been demonstrated effective or rational in anything but satiating peoples' need for revenge, is the most maximal infringement of a person's rights possible, and the detriments can logically be construed as far greater than the benefits since no demonstrable benefits have ever been gleaned from the death penalty.

Our abstention from captial punishment is in accordance with the charter, our use thereof would not be. Hence why I trust judges, who have extensive knowledge and experience with the charter and our legal system, far more than I trust politicians held by the fickle sway of public opinion (which, incidentally, doesn't seem very supportive of the death penalty anyways) and more importantly, lobby groups (which have a disturbing habit of representing one side, often disproportionately to the facts).

 

[48Highlander]

The SCC justices are appointed by the duly elected officials and I don't see a problem with judicial activism so long as it operates within the ideological framework of the society. I'd trust a judge to interpret the law and constitution far more than a political figure.

As for freedom of speech vs. capital punishment - the hate speech laws are rationally related to stopping hate speech, are arguably minimal in their infringement on the rights of the populous, and the detriments (which seem largely overblown by every libertarian out there) can hardly be said to outweigh the benefits.

That's debatable.  Without a doubt, the biggest problem with hate speech laws is the precedent they set.  As currently implemented, they are only a problem for the small minority of our population who happen to be very vocal in their expression of racist beleifs.  However, by implementing these laws we are setting a precedent which basicaly states that it is permissable to prosecute and incarcerate individuals simply because we do not agree with what they have to say.  That sort of behaviour is anathema to everything we're supposed to stand for as a free, democratic country.  I'm sure you've seen this piece of literature before, but I can't resist quoting it as it is certainly very relevant to any discussion on laws which limit freedom of speech:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Captial punishment has never been demonstrated effective or rational in anything but satiating peoples' need for revenge, is the most maximal infringement of a person's rights possible, and the detriments can logically be construed as far greater than the benefits since no demonstrable benefits have ever been gleaned from the death penalty.

That is also debatable.  I can best illustrate one clear benefit in the form of a question:  How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?

Our abstention from captial punishment is in accordance with the charter, our use thereof would not be.

I've yet to see any clear argument as to how the death penalty violates the Charter.  There is no specific prohibition of it.  If you were to make the case that the charter implies that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional.

 

[silverbach]

In reality, you cannot compare death penalty and imprisonment since those two measures are concerned with different protections (death sentence = life; imprisonment = liberty) in the Charter, each of them being applied and interpreted completely in a different manner.

Consequently, Highlander's statement (If you were to make the case that the charter implies that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional) would be, once more, inaccurate.

As far as his statement How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend? is concerned, one has got to keep in mind that soldiers are trained, in part, to kill. No wonder why he puts a different value on lif ethan most Canadians.

 

[silverbach]

Glorified Ape...I wanted to let you know that your last post was refreshing to read.

 

[48Highlander]

In reality, you cannot compare death penalty and imprisonment since those two measures are concerned with different protections (death sentence = life; imprisonment = liberty) in the Charter, each of them being applied and interpreted completely in a different manner.

Really.  Were you planing on showing some evidence of this, or are you going to continue speaking out of your posterior?

As far as his statement How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend? is concerned, one has got to keep in mind that soldiers are trained, in part, to kill. No wonder why he puts a different value on lif ethan most Canadians.

Yes, I do assign a higher value to the lives of victims than I do to the lives of criminals.  If that makes me un-Canadian, so be it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Quote from Silverbach,
I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....

WTF? http://www.ccadp.org/charlesng.htm

 

[silverbach]

As I have said previously on a thread, there are some people in here who take pleasure in being hostile with other members, all of this behind a computer though, and at times, I wonder if this hostility and vulgarity is relevant or not.

Also, I found out recently from a member from the directing staff that some members here treat civilians differently mainly for the reason that they are not members of the CF. A behavior that is largely questionable, but hey, racism and discrimination is everywhere, no reason for these two phenomena to escape the Army. Of course, I have no idea if that’s the case of Highlander, but it is possible.

Now, in one of his more colorful replies, Highlander brings into the equation my gluteus maximus, suggesting that IT talks on my behalf.

Most of you know that I’m here mostly to find answers to some of my questions with regards to the recruiting process where I have applied for two positions: Lawyer and Infantry (officer).

After expressing a legally-based opinion, when I get replies such as the one of Highlander referring to my buttocks, really, there are two ways to reply: either I bite and write in a manner that will get me in trouble or I choose not to respond because I am dealing with an individual who’s sole motivation  in life has been to fire a C7 for the past 8 years.

I won’t reply to Highlander. If I was, I would feel like the President of the United States explaining to kids in a kindergarden the size of the oval office.

I will choose to keep having respect for all of you, even those who don’t care much about civilians, lawyers or me...but unless I get kicked out out of here by army.ca, mark my words when I tell you this...:I’M HERE TO STAY.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The fact that judges are appointed by politicians imports, by design , calculated political ideology into the judicial appointment system that is naturally influenced by factors that often include attaining irrational political objectives through the justice system. As a result, judges and politicians occasionally impose skewed, narrow special interest values by misapprehending the "rule of law" over the greater public interest.  

Other than the possibility of sentencing to death an innocent person [a very rare anomoly and nothing more than that], I have never seen a decent public interest argument against the death penalty.  

 

[silverbach]

You know whiskey, many years ago when I was writing my thesis in anthropology, I remember a professor telling me that in science, questions will always be more interesting than the answers...may be we should look at capital punishment with the same perspective !

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Now, considering that I have made my point and corrected your thinking about section 7 of the Charter, let me ask you the following questions:

1) Since it seems you are an expert in constitutional law, would you be kind enough to tell all of us what is the actual word and spirit of the Charter ?

2) In relation to section 1, you said:

Restrictions on speech cannot be justified in a free society.  The death penalty on the other hand certainly can.

Now, considering that most faculty of laws in Canadian university give a 45-hour course only on section 1 of the Charter,

a) explain the Oakes criteria ?
b) please give us your application of Oakes relative to capital punishment...if you can...or was your one-liner simply an unfounded opinion on your part ?

As I have said previously on a thread, there are some people in here who take pleasure in being hostile with other members, all of this behind a computer though, and at times, I wonder if this hostility and vulgarity is relevant or not.

Also, I found out recently from a member from the directing staff that some members here treat civilians differently mainly for the reason that they are not members of the CF. A behavior that is largely questionable, but hey, racism and discrimination is everywhere, no reason for these two phenomena to escape the Army. Of course, I have no idea if that’s the case of Highlander, but it is possible.

Now, in one of his more colorful replies, Highlander brings into the equation my gluteus maximus, suggesting that IT talks on my behalf.

Most of you know that I’m here mostly to find answers to some of my questions with regards to the recruiting process where I have applied for two positions: Lawyer and Infantry (officer).

After expressing a legally-based opinion, when I get replies such as the one of Highlander referring to my buttocks, really, there are two ways to reply: either I bite and write in a manner that will get me in trouble or I choose not to respond because I am dealing with an individual who’s sole motivation  in life has been to fire a C7 for the past 8 years.

I won’t reply to Highlander. If I was, I would feel like the President of the United States explaining to kids in a kindergarden the size of the oval office.

I will choose to keep having respect for all of you, even those who don’t care much about civilians, lawyers or me...but unless I get kicked out out of here by army.ca, mark my words when I tell you this...:I’M HERE TO STAY.

:crybaby: :crybaby:

Im pretty sure you started being a dink first. 

If you want a simple example of suspension of personal rights for public benefit, I site the police ability to stop a car operating on a highway.  By its nature, stopping someone in motion and requiring them under pain of arrest to identify themselves would seem to violate the Charter.  But the Supreme Court decided that it was a reasonable suspension of rights given the benefit of getting drunk/suspended/unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the road. 
And I wouldn't mistake lack of constitutional reform since Meech as Canadians desire to see the status quo maintained.  Meech turned into a pathetic Quebec-fest, and now most Canadians are just happy to get by on their 48% tax and just feed their kids.  I don't see apathy as being the same as satisfaction.

 

[silverbach]

Guilty as charged, your honor...guilty as charged !

 

[Glorified Ape]

That's debatable.  Without a doubt, the biggest problem with hate speech laws is the precedent they set.  As currently implemented, they are only a problem for the small minority of our population who happen to be very vocal in their expression of racist beleifs.  However, by implementing these laws we are setting a precedent which basicaly states that it is permissable to prosecute and incarcerate individuals simply because we do not agree with what they have to say.  That sort of behaviour is anathema to everything we're supposed to stand for as a free, democratic country.  I'm sure you've seen this piece of literature before, but I can't resist quoting it as it is certainly very relevant to any discussion on laws which limit freedom of speech:

I can see why it's cause for some concern but one could view just about any limitations on rights to be a similar threat. Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre could be viewed that way but I think it's a reasonable limitation. Similarly, you can own a rifle but you can't own RPG rounds and hand grenades - another reasonable limitation. You're right that hate speech laws are essentially society imprisoning someone because we don't like what they're saying but it's like any other criminal law that way - we imprison people for doing things we don't like all the time, and already had laws in place to imprison people for saying things we didn't like (IE death threats, inciting riots, etc.). Society gleans no benefit from having people spew hateful tripe about a group of people, be it religious, racial, or ethnic.

As for the quote, yes I've heard it before. Keep in mind that if Germany had had hate speech legislation like ours, Mein Kampf and Hitler would have been relegated to the fringe.

That is also debatable.  I can best illustrate one clear benefit in the form of a question:  How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?

You have a point there but if life sentences were truly for life, we'd achieve the same end and expend far less money doing it.

I've yet to see any clear argument as to how the death penalty violates the Charter.  There is no specific prohibition of it.  If you were to make the case that the charter implies that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional.

As you said, it's debatable - it depends on what your interpretation of "reasonable limitation" is. As Silverbach mentioned before, the death penalty would need to pass the Oakes test to be constitutional and I can't see that happening with the overwhelming lack of evidence as to its benefits. The minimal impairment criterion would undoubtedly dictate life sentencing over capital punishment since the former impairs the rights of the individual far less than the latter. There's something else I'm missing that's relevant in the Charter but I can't remember 90% of what I learned in Cdn Judicial Politics so I'll have to add it on later once I've remembered.

 

[48Highlander]

I can see why it's cause for some concern but one could view just about any limitations on rights to be a similar threat. Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre could be viewed that way but I think it's a reasonable limitation.

The problem is that someone yelling "fire" is clearly commiting an act of mischief which is likely to place peoples lives in danger.  The part of the criminal code under which he can be charged are clear and dificult to misinterpret.  In contrast, look at the wording of our wondefrful hate-speech legislation:

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In other words, if you came on this board and for whatever reason decided to state that you support the war in Iraq because you think Muslims are a threat to us, you could theoreticaly be locked up for the next 5 years.  Your statement is encouraging other governments and their soldiers to "kill members of the group" where the group is a distinct religion and a distinct "ethnic origin".  And technicaly, that means that a good number of the members of this board are now criminals.  Wether we're convicted of it or not is immaterial; we HAVE violated this law.  Personaly, I don't like having to think of myself as a criminal.

As for the quote, yes I've heard it before. Keep in mind that if Germany had had hate speech legislation like ours, Mein Kampf and Hitler would have been relegated to the fringe.

See, that's the misconception.  The government and the judges are the ones who set the standard.  If you want an example, think about our own society.  Could you imagine a black man being incarcarated for giving a speech in which he advocates killing or otherwise hurting white people?  It wouldn't happen.  Look at all the protests where supporters of Palestine advocate the destruction of Israel.  Are they prosecuted?  Ofcourse not!  As a society we tend to view racism as a one-way street - only the "majority" can discriminate against the "minorities".  Now what would happen if our government and judges underwent a massive reorganization?  All of a sudden we elect a white-power organization into government.  Well, you'd see the exact opposite.  Minorities would be charged for comiiting "hate crimes" against whites, while whites would have pretty much total impunity.  Hate-speech laws wouldn't have stopped Hitler, if anything they would have given him yet another tool to use against his people.

You have a point there but if life sentences were truly for life, we'd achieve the same end and expend far less money doing it.

Well, there's always the possibility of escape.  However, you're right, if a life sentence were truly "for life" I wouldn't bother arguing for the death penalty.  Both achieve the same result more or less.  However, I don't see life imprisonment as any more moral than the death penalty.  And if I were falsly convicted of a crime, personaly, I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in jail.

As you said, it's debatable - it depends on what your interpretation of "reasonable limitation" is. As Silverbach mentioned before, the death penalty would need to pass the Oakes test to be constitutional and I can't see that happening with the overwhelming lack of evidence as to its benefits.

Wether it passes the oakes test or not is also a matter of opinion.  It's all subjective.  Our government and judicial system have determined that, in their opinion, the death penalty does not pass the Oakes test.  However, that's the same government that seems to have determined that having the average citizen spend 50% of their income on taxes is somehow beneficial to our society, so I certainly don't have much faith in their ability to weigh the benefits and detriments of the death penalty

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem with hate speech laws is they are misused to censor expression that some people merely find objectionable.  It is best to simply confront bad ideas with good ones.  Hate speech laws are the legal equivalent of hecklers.  A heckler is merely a living ad hominem fallacy.