Europe's draft constitution
- Thread starter DemoCoder
- Start date
Yes, he was caught in Afganistan. Your argumentation would have made some sense if it was clear that he commited a crime at all, but it's not and his case have not been tried in any court, neither Swedish, Afgan or American. That's taking away a human right from him no matter how you twist it and I think it's quite disturbing that this is alright for "the land of the free".
As for the other cases, accepting that someone get their hands and foot chopped because of a crime in another country is just wrong and against human rights. Protecting humans rights should be above any other principle. The guy who steels IDs, sure it's not fair, but there's no human rights conflict in that story and it's quite irrelevant in this context.
As for the other cases, accepting that someone get their hands and foot chopped because of a crime in another country is just wrong and against human rights. Protecting humans rights should be above any other principle. The guy who steels IDs, sure it's not fair, but there's no human rights conflict in that story and it's quite irrelevant in this context.
Ummm, "wrongful" imprisonment isn't a human rights issue?Humus said:
In that paroble, the EU wants to imprison him, the US feels its wrongful (because we don't have a law against it)
Mark Cicero said:
Chartists were early 19th century. Middle classes given the vote 1830s (part of the Whig reforms) and all men 1850s IIRC. Women given vote from 1918 at the age of 30, reduced to 21 (same as men) a few years later. The Chartists were preceded by the Levellers at the time of the English Civil Wars, and had a 'near miss' in 1644 before the King escaped and mucked everything up.
The Glorious, aka Bloodless, Revolution in which James II was deposed was 1688. There was a Bill of Rights in 1689, which dealt with the relation between King and Parliament, perhaps you were thinking of that.
If you are talking about the history of England, do remember that England ceased to be a sovereign nation state with the Act of Union 1707 which created the United Kingdom, a multi-nation state (not to be confused with Great Britain, an island). This is a piece of history conveniently forgotten by tub-thumping Eurosceptic nationalists (e.g. the Daily Mail described the European Constitution as threatening 'an end to 1000 years of British independence' - wtf did they get that number from?)
A unified English monarchy (and so arguably England) came into being in the 10th century, under King Alfred the Great. The seven independent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms voluntarily united, another piece of history conveniently forgotten. I think I shall take the Murdoch/Black argument to its logical conclusion and demand independence for the Kingdom of Wessex...
Mark Cicero
Newcomer
*smack to the head*
Thanks amk. I was having serious issues with my browser thanks Lotus Notes eating up all my memory (more has been ordered thank God). I originally had it listed as various dates in the 19th and 20th century. I was thinking about the Bill of Rights as it did seriously, and legislatively, limit the role of the monarch. I had forgotten about the Act of Union though. Most of my focus is on Tudor/Stuart England and the only Act of Union I tend to remember is the failed one between Scotland and England under James in 1607.
----------
Now to weigh in on the other debate, now I agree that the laws of a sovereign nation should apply to all people within its boundaries, however there is a case to be made for the idea that a nation should be willing to protect the life and well being of its citizens while they are in another nation. That's why people can ask to speak to someone from their consulate if they get into trouble. Canada has a guy stuck in Saudi Arabia on charges we know to be false (someone else took responsibility for the bomb in question) and he's sentenced to death and in the meantime he's basically being tortured. We have been trying to 'lobby' for his release for some time now to no realistic success.
As for extradition, if the country states that the death penalty is contrary to its laws and then extradites someone to have a trial where that is a possibility then that country is now actively going against its own laws, possibly it's own constitution, in doing so. That would be a bad thing, especially if it is constitutionally subversive because the state would have contravened (sp?) its own (primary) law and provided precedence for others to legally do so.
Hopefully that makes sense. I'm operating on a bit too little sleep right now.
Thanks amk. I was having serious issues with my browser thanks Lotus Notes eating up all my memory (more has been ordered thank God). I originally had it listed as various dates in the 19th and 20th century. I was thinking about the Bill of Rights as it did seriously, and legislatively, limit the role of the monarch. I had forgotten about the Act of Union though. Most of my focus is on Tudor/Stuart England and the only Act of Union I tend to remember is the failed one between Scotland and England under James in 1607.
----------
Now to weigh in on the other debate, now I agree that the laws of a sovereign nation should apply to all people within its boundaries, however there is a case to be made for the idea that a nation should be willing to protect the life and well being of its citizens while they are in another nation. That's why people can ask to speak to someone from their consulate if they get into trouble. Canada has a guy stuck in Saudi Arabia on charges we know to be false (someone else took responsibility for the bomb in question) and he's sentenced to death and in the meantime he's basically being tortured. We have been trying to 'lobby' for his release for some time now to no realistic success.
As for extradition, if the country states that the death penalty is contrary to its laws and then extradites someone to have a trial where that is a possibility then that country is now actively going against its own laws, possibly it's own constitution, in doing so. That would be a bad thing, especially if it is constitutionally subversive because the state would have contravened (sp?) its own (primary) law and provided precedence for others to legally do so.
Hopefully that makes sense. I'm operating on a bit too little sleep right now.
I thought the context of this thread was a guy who commits a crime in the US, and the EU refuses to extradite him. My scenario is a guy who commits a crime in the EU and the US refuses to extradite him.
In one scenario, the EU doesn't want to extradite because they feel the sentence is too harsh for the crime. In the other scenario, the US doesn't extradite because it feels the sentence is too harsh for the crime. A better example would be a scandinavian bring pot to the US and smoking it and getting years of jail time.
This is a problem of relativism. EU and US have divergent criminal justice systems. But when a crime is committed on your soil within the context of your legal system, a foreign power doesn't get to grant immunity from punishment by your legal system. The only sensible policy is that extradition hearings should be made on the basis of the evidence, not the potential sentence if found guilty.
In one scenario, the EU doesn't want to extradite because they feel the sentence is too harsh for the crime. In the other scenario, the US doesn't extradite because it feels the sentence is too harsh for the crime. A better example would be a scandinavian bring pot to the US and smoking it and getting years of jail time.
This is a problem of relativism. EU and US have divergent criminal justice systems. But when a crime is committed on your soil within the context of your legal system, a foreign power doesn't get to grant immunity from punishment by your legal system. The only sensible policy is that extradition hearings should be made on the basis of the evidence, not the potential sentence if found guilty.
Except that this is not about being "too harch", but about violating human rights. Putting somebody in jail after a fair trial is not a violation of human rights, but putting somebody in prison for an extended amount of time without a trial is a violation against human rights. Death penalty is also a crime against human rights. Cutting off somebody's hands or feet is a crime against human rights. Is any of these activities likely, then no extradition should be made, it would be wrong to do so. That doesn't mean you shouldn't put him to justice.
If a european guy commits a crime in the US and is inprisoned there after a fair trial I'm perfectly fine with it. Same with a US citizen commitin a crime over here. It doesn't matter who or where he's in jail, however extradition is fine and preferrable in most cases. If he's just locked in and never gets a trial then I'm not fine with it, it's a violation of human rights. If he's likely to be sent to death, then he should be kept in prison in the EU instead to avoid crimes against human rights.
As for this being a problem between the US and EU I don't see that as very likely, there are many states in the US that doesn't practice death penalty either. I'm certain he could be sent to the right place. I don't think anyone is trying to sling any shit on the US with this in the constitution either. If there's any such thought I would think it's aimed at middle-east countries where it's practiced to way higher extents than in the US.
If a european guy commits a crime in the US and is inprisoned there after a fair trial I'm perfectly fine with it. Same with a US citizen commitin a crime over here. It doesn't matter who or where he's in jail, however extradition is fine and preferrable in most cases. If he's just locked in and never gets a trial then I'm not fine with it, it's a violation of human rights. If he's likely to be sent to death, then he should be kept in prison in the EU instead to avoid crimes against human rights.
As for this being a problem between the US and EU I don't see that as very likely, there are many states in the US that doesn't practice death penalty either. I'm certain he could be sent to the right place. I don't think anyone is trying to sling any shit on the US with this in the constitution either. If there's any such thought I would think it's aimed at middle-east countries where it's practiced to way higher extents than in the US.
The problem is, what is human rights. The EU version of human rights includes things like entitlements that we do not view as rights.
Nor do we view capital punishment as a violation of human rights. Cruel and unusual punishment is relative. Do you think beating witha cane is a violation? What about castration of sexual offenders like pedophiles and rapists? How about life imprisonment? Some people think that is inhumane as well. Solitary confinement? Lack of TV?
Let's take a great example: the DC snipers. Zero doubt that they are guilty with a certainty. In person, they are also sociopathic and aggressive. They will be tried and executed. I see no reason to risk their continued existence. If they ever escape, they will be insanely dangerous. They will also likely be dangerous to the other prisoners!
EU version of this story would have them in soft prison, writing books and telling their tales. Maybe even eligle for parole with free worker placement service.
Nor do we view capital punishment as a violation of human rights. Cruel and unusual punishment is relative. Do you think beating witha cane is a violation? What about castration of sexual offenders like pedophiles and rapists? How about life imprisonment? Some people think that is inhumane as well. Solitary confinement? Lack of TV?
Let's take a great example: the DC snipers. Zero doubt that they are guilty with a certainty. In person, they are also sociopathic and aggressive. They will be tried and executed. I see no reason to risk their continued existence. If they ever escape, they will be insanely dangerous. They will also likely be dangerous to the other prisoners!
EU version of this story would have them in soft prison, writing books and telling their tales. Maybe even eligle for parole with free worker placement service.
Humus said:
That's a subjective matter of opinion, not a fact. I would argue that a person who intentionally kills another person wrongfully deprives that person of their human rights, and that the only just response is the death penalty. People have the right to a reckoning. Of course, we could argue till we're blue in the face about this, as could the US and Europe if such a situation arose. The only practical way of dealing with this is to extradite based on evidence, not potential punishment, as Democoder said. If you commit a crime in a country, you are subject to that country's laws. If you think their laws are human rights violations, don't commit the crime.
The EU are going down the tried and true European method of making modern laws that are lengthy and subject to being totally archaic.
Witness the French laws concerning agriculture. By and large they date back to Napoleanic code, and I can't tell you what a problem that is, for say my family which has a mill in Normandy.
What seems like a good idea in 2000, might not be a good idea for 2300.
The US bill of rights and constitution is still by and large the most potent documents in our nation. Yes, even with all the forethought and planning to make it simple and straightforward, it suffers from a few lapses.
Witness the 2nd amendment. The idea was that allowing civilians to possess guns, so they could indeed overthrow any government that wasn't doing its job properly or acting dictatorial. It was a safety precaution and a fallback, I mantain it was a good idea at the time.
Now its archaic, b/c the military has tanks/aircraft etc and it would be completely futile and suicidal to try a revolt in that manner.
Instead, we have to suffer through our teenagers possessing semi automatic weapons and the like, not for the original reason they were intended, but so they could wage urban warfare against each other.
Trying to change that law to something more relevant to our time, is like pulling teeth out of a lion, with ones bare hands.
Witness the French laws concerning agriculture. By and large they date back to Napoleanic code, and I can't tell you what a problem that is, for say my family which has a mill in Normandy.
What seems like a good idea in 2000, might not be a good idea for 2300.
The US bill of rights and constitution is still by and large the most potent documents in our nation. Yes, even with all the forethought and planning to make it simple and straightforward, it suffers from a few lapses.
Witness the 2nd amendment. The idea was that allowing civilians to possess guns, so they could indeed overthrow any government that wasn't doing its job properly or acting dictatorial. It was a safety precaution and a fallback, I mantain it was a good idea at the time.
Now its archaic, b/c the military has tanks/aircraft etc and it would be completely futile and suicidal to try a revolt in that manner.
Instead, we have to suffer through our teenagers possessing semi automatic weapons and the like, not for the original reason they were intended, but so they could wage urban warfare against each other.
Trying to change that law to something more relevant to our time, is like pulling teeth out of a lion, with ones bare hands.
DemoCoder said:
"Zero doubt" <-- There you have the problem with death penalty. Many people have been executed after loads of evidence against them, then later proven to be innocent. You may have zero doubt today, but what about tomorrow as more info surfaces, new witnesses, new technical evidence etc. Regardless of how much evidence there is there is always a chance that it's wrong, either because of bad luck with many coincidental factors all pointing on the innocent, or maybe more common, the really guilty guy arranged it so that it would look like someone else committed the crime, setting up all kinds of things to and carefully selecting his victim to receive the guilt. Just because you executed somebody doesn't mean the dangerous guy isn't still on the streets.
If the guy had just been inprisoned for life it could be undone mostly, he can get his freedom back and compensation for his suffering. If he's been executed there's no way to undo the mistake.
fbg1 said:
Subjective, maybe, but I don't know any european country that doesn't view death penalty as a crime against human rights. I certainly think that belongs to the constitution.
Yes, not commiting a crime is of course the best idea. However, commiting a crime doesn't take away your human rights. If I got my hands chopped for looking to long at a woman's chest somewhere in maybe Iran I don't think anyone here would be like "well, you did break the law .." or anything like that. I think everyone would be pretty pissed at what level their juridical system is and their disrespect for human rights. Had it happened to an american it may be enough reason for Bush to build enough support for military action against them and regime change.
Fred,
yes, the current draft is way beyond what should be in a constitution. It looks like they pretty much added everything that ever was discussed. I'm sure they will clean it up before going final. Much of it will probably be moved to normal law levels or just skipped altogether. While I'm not sure if it will make it all the way from the current heavy-weight thing to a light-weight I'm confident that it'll at least be middle-weight in the final.
yes, the current draft is way beyond what should be in a constitution. It looks like they pretty much added everything that ever was discussed. I'm sure they will clean it up before going final. Much of it will probably be moved to normal law levels or just skipped altogether. While I'm not sure if it will make it all the way from the current heavy-weight thing to a light-weight I'm confident that it'll at least be middle-weight in the final.
Is this one in there?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0602/od_afp/portugal_nap_offbeat_030602140818
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0602/od_afp/portugal_nap_offbeat_030602140818
