I do feel that they will be effecitve and in the next few pages I will explain why I feel this way and why I have taken this stand.
First of all I read through the whole charter and as boring as it was I made it through unscaved. Just like anything in order to have something you need a purpose. A reason for doing something. The reason why this charter was brought forward was because that they realized that during that century millions of children, mean and women have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity. That sounds like enough for me. When I read that, I was think “Oh my God”, I mean come on unimaginable atrocities. It is obvious that something that to be done and even the littlest change would make a difference.
The first thing they did was establish a “Court”. This court was permanent and had the power to exercise its jurisdiction over people for the most serious crimes. What I like about this and a reason why I feel it will work also is that in the beginning of the charter is that they have a relationship with the United Nations. This relationship only makes this court stronger.
Part III of the charter looks a lot like a military code of justice. It set’s principles to be followed by the court or in the military a Commander if you will. It appears to me that this charters strength is in Part III, because here is where all the rules or articles are that explain what can be done by the court and what can not be done. It breaks it down to the core, including what to do with someone under 18 years of age. I feel that this is where the strength of the court lies. It defines who is a criminal and who is not, it tells us when the court can pursue a criminal or when a crime is not comitted.
The further I got into the parts, the more I strongly I feel about saying they will be effective. It seems as if this court is no different then another court we have in the USA. Part four set’s up the membership. It states who is in charge of what and what their responsibilites should be. When you have people who know what they are supposed to do and that they are held accountable to their jobs then failure is not an option.
Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist. COMPARISON OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CANADIAN CHARTER... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
...ven law into legislation. If these steps were not taken, we would risk living in a world of oppression and injustice. Many have paid the ultimate price, granting us the opportunity to live in a nation where we pride ourselves upon the freedom we value so dearly. Thus, when reflecting back on our society and the value of living in a democratic environment, it seems rather obvious that the implementation of these Charter sections is a small price to pay for our free and equal culture.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “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.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
...e results. I believe that this reform would be rational and helpful to the masses especially if a brand new platform were to be built upon research conducted from the previous policies.
If given this prompt at the beginning of this semester I would have answered with a resounding yes, the criminal justice system is racist. The classes I have previously taken at LSU forced me to view the criminal justice system as a failed institution and Eric Holder’s interview in VICE - Fixing The System solidified that ideology. The system is man-made, created by people in power, and imposed on society, so of course there will be implicit biases. The issue is that these internally held implicit biases shaped the system, leading the racial and class disparities. VICE – Fixing The System addressed heavily the outcomes that we see in today’s society based on these implicit biases. Additionally, this documentary focuses on the ways that mainly
They, by in large, will not provide the systematic changes needed to end mass incarceration. To end the prison industrial complex, we must create a national solution. Although some may say that under the constitution, the criminal justice system is a state problem and affair, thus preventing the creation of a national solution, the formation of a national solution would cause the creation of stronger state
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Saint Augustine once said, “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?” The criminal justice system in America has been documented time and time again as being a legal system that borders on the surreal. We as Americans live in a country where the Justice Department has failed to collect on $7 billion in fines and restitutions from thirty-seven thousand corporations and individuals convicted of white collar crime. That same Justice Department while instead spending more than 350% since 1980 on total incarceration expenditures totaling $80 billion dollars. America has become a place where a 71-year-old man will get 150 years in prison for stealing $68 billion dollars from nearly everyone in the country and a five-time petty offender in Dallas was sentenced to one thousand years in prison for stealing $73.
Overall all the key elements of the agreement had good aims, they needed a world without war, with more peaceful and prosperous, and among developed economies. Still charter dose not have a final version but finally the charter ultimately did serve as an inspiration for a colonial subjects through the Third World, from Algeria to Vietnam.
&., 2005, p. 67) , the United States Congress refused to cooperate with America joining the League and viewed Woodrow Wilsons idea of the League and his foreign policy as too ‘ideational’. With the absence of the US rendering the League without access to Americas forceful military and economic power- which left the Covenants ability stated within Article 16 to “institute economic or military sanctions against a recalcitrant state” (Orjinta, 2010, p. 10) considerably weaker- German, Japanese and Italian dictatorships rejected the sovereignty of the League (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 86). Yet although it can be agreed the League failed in regards to its main purpose of maintaining peace and security, it did however provide a desire among states for an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO) to ‘recognise that it is in their [governments] national interests to obtain multilateral agreements and pursue actions to deal with threats, challenges, or problems that cannot be dealt with effectively at the unilateral level’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 79). From this perspective, the League of Nations opened up a place for the United Nations to thus continue on a path of maintaining peace in an improved and effective manner. It is true that the UN Charter commandeered elements of the Leagues
Rosenberg fails to provide such. Although his study provides an array of charts, figures and tatistics, it does not mean much due to his insignificant sample. His data focuses on less than ten court decisions, which hardly constitutues a sufficient sample. Once again, when looking at Rosenbergs thesis, he should have compiled far more valid evidence sufficient to identify other factors that might influence judicial efficacy. Not only is. Rosenberg's investigation shallow, it lacks adequate breadth as well. In order to truly comprehend the courts impact on social issues in history, Rosenberg must tmove beyond approaches that try to isolate the Court entirely from the changes it constitues. Thus, Hollow Hope may actually prove, not that the Court is an ineffective agent of social change, but rather that it often plays an important and powerful role in our political system. Rosenberg emphasizes the court's dependence but hardly recoguizes its influence. Rosenberg's conclusion that social change can rarely be advanced through court action is flawed. The Hollow Hope cannot prove this claim. Through a combination of incomplete analysis and problematic presumptions, Rosenberg underestimates the extent of the court’s contribution to social
have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the s...
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
...institutions by authorizing them to overrule the legislative or executive actions. As neither an elected or overly representative group, giving the Judiciary a great deal of power over the law in New Zealand could potentially have dire consequences in the instance of an abuse of power. Therefore there are both positives and negatives to be considered when assessing the effect that having a supreme law constitution would have on the Judiciary.