Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their victims feel the pain, but imagine the pain and sorrow that the families of the victims feel, and that pain lasts for the rest of their lives. If someone from my family was killed, I wouldn't think a second what to do with the murderer. I would want him dead. Most of the families feel this way and the best way to stop the pain is to get rid off the cause of the pain. Death sentence is effective because it deters crimes, but many people argue that life without parole is much harder to serve for the person who committed the crime, "Abolitionist claim there are some alternative to the death penalty, they say that life without parole serves just as well" Guilmette 2. I agree that putting away the murderer is effective, but just isn't enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. As long as the murderer there is a small possibility that he could strike again. Capital punishment is the most effective weapon against the murderers; because no executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison. Death sentence also depends on the case. I am not saying that everybody who commits the murder should be placed on the death row. There are different types of the murder and every murder that was planned or intentional should be severely punished. As Hugo Adam Badeu says, "Despicable crimes should be dealt with realistically" Badeu et al. 131. I have no mercy for the killers, and nobody should have any mercy for anybody who does harm to another human being. Who gives a right to anyone to commit crime anyway? Michael Kronenwetter says, "The death penalty has always been considered especially appropriate for the crime of murder" Kronenwetter 6. Murder is the biggest crime and biggest offense, and it should be treated like that. Over the years, public safety has become a meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless way to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be argued that supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. The whole reason why nations and government exist is to defend their citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. I think that the people in all the nations will soon realize that capital punishment, like the military or police force and even taxes is an unavoidable consequence of every civilized society, and it will no longer be the question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used. "According to polls, more than 70 percent of Americans feel that murderers deserve the death penalty" Winters et al. 168. What can you say to the parents of the kids that were killed in Columbine High School, their kids will never come back, and their killers were kids, too. What can be done about juvenile murderers? "President Clinton proposed that the age at which penalty could be applied should be reduced from 21 to 18" O'Rourke 1. I agree with that and if that law could be put in place, no killer would be protected. Everybody who is mature enough to the consequences of the things they do should be equally punished as everybody else. Most of the people don't agree with this, but that's just the way it is. As I said laws change and convicted could be out on the streets again, and they could strike again. Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment have supported their cause with many arguments. They have claimed that some have been wrongly sent to death row, while other decisions have been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor. Others argued for the sanctity of human life, as well as the expense involved in capital punishment. But those who believe in the opposition of the death penalty are often misled. They should consider the following cases that underlie the support for capital punishment, for it is certainly the only way to deal with the cruelty of crime that has infected our society. Capital punishment was once supported by the theory of deterrence, yet studies have shown weaknesses in this argument. Although the death penalty may not have an effect in deterring crime, it protects society from the threat of the same criminal committing a violation again when they are set free. A notable example is the case of Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate the Pope after he had previously been tried and convicted of murder. Opponents may often refute this by suggesting a life sentence without parole, yet research has shown that the crime rates in prisons are gradually increasing. What happens when a person sentenced with life imprisonment kills another inmate or guard during that time? This brings about reconsideration for those who advocate sentences without parole instead of capital punishment. A second way to look at the validation of capital punishment is the concept of retribution. Retribution cannot be confused with the concept of revenge. It is society"s right of intolerance to heinous crimes that bring about the need for death row. Criminals have not only injured their victims but also the important values that govern society, which is the respect for life. Society has a responsibility to protect its citizens, doing what is necessary and appropriate to those who break the laws. Thus, capital punishment is necessary to ensure the priceless value of human lives. Thirdly, some people urge to abolish the death penalty because of their concern for the sanctity of human life. That is precisely the reason why this form of crime prevention should be maintained. Capital punishment is different from murder because the person being executed had committed a crime and was tried and found guilty. An execution carried out after a trial cannot be compared to a murder committed by a criminal. Lastly, it is suggested and often proven that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups. One must see that this problem does not concern the justification of the penalty, but the unfair way in which it is distributed. This problem may be improved by properly reviewing the cases, imposing decisions without regard to race or class. This can be achieved so that all defendants receive equal protection ground. Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it. Many criminals don"t fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don"t want to die. There are also men that don"t fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don"t fear death but love to break the law. What do you do with men who do not fear the loss of their life? One criminal of America, Carl Panzram was quoted in saying, "In my life I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don"t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damned human race including myself" Panzram 1. Men like this who do not care for any law and do every unthinkable act are being supported in some jails around the world. What do you do with people who only want to kill and cause chaos? There is very little you can do, especially if they do not care if they are imprisoned. Panzram cares for nothing. He doesn"t mind his fifteen years in prison, or even his twenty-five. Panzram was executed and can no longer bother man kind, but there are others like him. Australia has abolished the death sentence. They can no longer control the men like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment. The death penalty should be maintained"¦
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1764 Views: 449 Comments: 0
Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their...
like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment.

The death penalty should be maintained…

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection,...Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case. The question you always have to ask yourself is what did the accused do and do they deserve the death penalty? What is bad enough to deserve death? Are their certain crimes that do and then some that do not? Almost every culture through out history has relied on the death penalty and capital punishment and justified as a necessary tool to maintain order. The only thing that changed throughout time were the crimes deemed punishable by death and the methods used to kill those found guilty. Some of the other countries" laws of capital punishment seem so barbaric. In ancient India, executions were sometimes carried out by having an elephant crush the condemned"s head. Executions used to be public spectacles. In ancient Persia, one method of execution involved being eaten alive by insects and vermin. In the middle ages, methods of execution included chopping off limbs, stripping off the condemned person"s skin, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering cutting the persons innards and then tearing the body into four pieces, burning at the stake, and crucifixion. In 1692, a man refused to testify after his wife was accused of witchcraft and was " Pressed " to death. The sentence was carried out by lying him on a stone floor, placing a board over him, and piling stones upon the board. Benjamin Rush, credited with the beginning the movement to abolish capital punishment in the U.S, declared in 1792 that reform, not retribution, should be the goal of punishment. The Bible authorizes executing those who show contempt on their parents, walk without permission on sacred ground, practicing sorcery, sacrifice in foreign gods or who prostitute themselves. In the Bible Exodus 21:12 it says, " Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death." Electrocution in the modern era. Electricity causes biological damage through both heat and electrochemical havoc. The electrical current itself abolishes the function of organs and tissues such as the brain, nerves, and heart by overwhelming the fragile bioelectrical basis of the metabolism. The voltage applied is not the most critical factor but is in fact, almost irrelevant as much as electrical pressure was a factor. The body can tolerate a lot of volts without discomfort. The type of electrical current, too, makes a difference-whether direct DC or alternating AC. The latter is more dangerous and can be lethal even with low voltage and relatively low amperage. The alternating cycle of 60 per second, which is ordinary 110-120 volt house current, will invariably stop heart action through stand still or ventricular fibrillation if the body somehow becomes part of a circuit. The gas chamber. When sodium cyanide pellets are dropped into acid beneath the seated subject in a gas chamber, extremely lethal hydrogen cyanide is produced"¦ Cyanide asphyxiates acts by choking the cells instead of blocking air intake. The gas, HCN, is rapidly absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs. The red blood cells are relatively immune to HCN. When delivered to all of the body"s cells"¦ Cyanide literally and rapidly chokes all the body"s cells to death at the same time. Hanging proponents. Proponents of hanging as a more humane method objected to the practice of beheading"¦Advocates of hanging argued that if the noose were correctly applied to the neck, consciousness would disappear quickly due to the sudden and complete blockage of blood in the head, with resultant swelling of the brain and rupture of small blood vessels. People to whom this was done too that survived swore that there was no pain before they lost consciousness. In a sense any advantages of hanging would seem to be compromised when the "drop" was added. That the drop usually resulted in the breaking of the neck and the ripping of the spinal cord, thus essentially and much more crudely duplicating the results of decapitation without detaching the head. Lethal injection. Thiopental Sodium is a fast acting drug that produces almost short -term unconsciousness after a single dose, it is also used as a " truth serum " administered in small, intermittent, carefully calibrated hypnotic dosed while the subjects counts backward from 100. A trance-like, semi-consciousness is usually reached before the count gets to 90. To complete the lethal mixture for execution, society has stipulated the addition of potassium chloride. A high level of potassium in the blood paralyzes the heart muscle. In effect, then, that would correspond to a heart attack for the condemned while in the deep sleep of a barbiturate coma. As April, 1991, the method of execution in 21 states is lethal injection. Six states grant a choice: between lethal injection and the gas chamber in MO and NC, hanging in MT and WA, or a firing squad in Idaho and Utah. The fist such execution in Texas in 1982 was attempted by prison employees. They had difficulty in trying to pierce the badly scarred veins of the condemned man with a large needle and blood splattered all over the sheets. Among those witnesses the bungled attempt was of the prison doctor. Firing squads. Firing squads was probably the 2nd most widely; cruel used technique of execution. Death was virtually instant if the person is shot at close range through the skull; the bullet penetrates the medulla, which contains the vital respirator and cardiac among others. The other way firing squads followed their orders is to aim at the condemned"s heart from some meters away. The reason for this is simple; the cause of death in these cases is normally blood loss through the rupture of the heart or a large vessel, or tearing of the lungs. Persons shot by bullet wounds that are were suffering said when they were shot it felt like hey were kicked hard by a large horse. Usually firing squads usually kill quickly because of a large number of soldiers of prison guards firing simultaneously. The guillotine. The guillotine was named after the French deputy who proposed the use of the device in 1789. It was believed to be a swift and painless device. Many people believe that the guillotine was invented in France, but it had previously been used in Italy, Germany, and Scotland in the 16th century. Guillotining was considered to be more humane because the blade was sharper, and execution was more rapid than was normally accomplished with an ax. Death occurs due to the separation of the brain and the spinal cord, after transaction of the surrounding tissues. Consciousness is probably lost within 2-3 seconds, due to rapid fall of intracranial perfusion of the blood. Garroting. Garroting is a form of strangulation by a metal collar with a clamp. The tissues of the neck are tough and the application of the contraption is highly disagreeable, the clamp also occludes the trachea. It kills by asphyxia, cerebral ishaemia. Dying is painful, deeply distressing and may take several minutes. The courts step in. By 1967 legislation efforts were under way to persuade the U.S Supreme Court that the death penalty violated cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions of the eight amendment. The court responded by staying execution by the court order pending outcome of the suits. In June 1992 the court decided that the erratic selection of offenders singled out for the death penalty resulted from lack of standards. On July 1972 the Supreme Court again ruled on the death penalty and issued 5 opinions. One decision stated that capital punishment for the crime of murder was not cruel or unusual punishment. They also ruled that to be constitutional a procedure for imposing the death penalty must provide standards for sentencing authorities. The Supreme Court rulings indicated the court would hold the states to strict standards in imposing the death penalty. The prosecutor. The prosecutor must decide weather to change the offender with an offense meriting the death penalty or a lesser offense. Assuming the occused has been charged with death penalty, the prosecutor ordinarily has to decide weather to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offense instead. This permits the defendant to avoid possible execution in exchange for going to prison without a trial. In some situations the prosecutor makes his or her decision in cooperation with the grand jury. Since prosecutors are no more immune to human fallibility than others are, the possibility of error lurks. The defense lawyer. When the prosecutor charges a defendant with a capital offense but is willing to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser one, the defendant the oretically, has the option of accepting or rejecting the alternative. Sometimes the accused is more than likely in a state of emotional turmoil, frightened, and confused. The defendant may, in fact, not be guilty, but the defense lawyer may nevertheless advise the client to plead guilty to the lesser offense in order to avoid trial, the risk of conviction, and the possibility of execution. Should the defendant elect to stand trial, his or her fate is completely in the hands of the defense attorney. If the criminal lawyer is skillful, the chances of conviction, if the accused is not guilty, are much in the defendant"s favor. The jury. The defendant"s fate is also in the hands of the jurors. At the end of the trial the jurors are faced with a number of decisions to make, each of which can be subject to error. Race, racism continues to play an unacceptable and powerful role in capital punishment. In state death penalty cases, he race of the victim is much more important than the prior criminal record of the defender or the actual circumstances of crime. More than half of those inmates on death row are people of color, although they represent only 20% of the people of the U.S although they are about 6% of the U.S population, about 40% of those on death row are African American. Race, a 1984 death penalty case, McClaskey vs. Kemp, showed that in Georgia those who kill whites are four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill a black person. At the federal level, black and Hispanic defendants are disproportionately selected for capital prosecution. Since 1988, the federal government has sought the death penalty in 92 cases. Of these, 56 defendants 61% were black, 11 were Hispanic, 5 were Asian, and 20 were Caucasian. Women, in comparison with men, women are less often prosecuted for capital crimes, and less frequently sentenced to death. Nevertheless, 47 women are awaiting execution in the U.S. In February 1998, Kayla Faye Tucker was executed in Texas despite her obvious rehabilitation. Her case drew worldwide attention, and many clemency pleas, including those from human rights activist Bianca Jogger, the Rev. Pat Robertson, and Pope John Paul II, one of the jurors in her case, and the brother of one of her victims. As April 1998, Florida executed 54 year old Judy Buenano also. 3 women in AK, IL, and TX were given the death penalty in 1998. Juveniles, In 1988 the U.S Supreme Court ruled that persons less than 16 when they committed the crime may not be sentenced to death. Currently in 14 states not including MO and as well as the federal government ban the execution of those who were younger than 18 when he killed. At this present time, 51 death row inmates, all male, were less than 18 when they committed the crime. Three fourths of them were 17 and a quarter were 16 years old. Texas" death row holds 20 of the 51; nine men have been executed for crimes committed at age 17, none since 1993. In 1997, at least 6 juveniles ages 16 or 17 when they killed were condemned to death. In February 1999, OK executed Sean Sellars for a horrendous crime he committed when he was 16. In 1992, a defense-sponsored psychiatric evaluation concluded Sellars had multiple personality disorder. But the 10th U.S circuit court of appeals, based on a technicality said it could not grand relief. Statistics, There have been 18 total executions in the new millennium and nine of them have been in TX. Between 1930 and 1980 there have been 3,860 executions in the U.S of this number, 3,380 have been executed for murder. Rape, armed robbery, burglary and aggravated assault no longer are capital crimes. Only 32 women have been executed. Since 1930 half of all persons executed were non-white. By 1983 polls revealed nearly 70% favored capital punishment. Questions you have to ask yourself about the death penalty. Does a prisoner have the right to die quickly rather than wait for years while the appeals process drags on? Why does the appeals process take so long? Why, in a time when many countries have abolished the death penalty, does the U.S still execute criminals? Is the death penalty jut, or is it a legalized form of murder? Does the death penalty actually prevent crime by frightening potential crimes? Is it cruel to kill someone in an electric chair or gas chamber? Is it fair to all Americans that some states have strict death penalty laws while others employ long, complicated legal procedures that make it almost impossible for a criminal to be executed? Samuel Hand, The North American Review, December 1881 wrote an article titled Deserved Retribution. It said, Capital execution upon the deadly poisoner and the midnight assassin is not only necessary for the safety of society, it is the fit and deserved retribution of their crimes. By it alone is divine and human justice is fulfilled. Robert Rantaul Jr., Report to The Legislature, 1836 wrote an article titled Death Penalty Unnecessary. It said, It is not necessary to hang the murderer in order to guard society against him, and to prevent him from repeating the crime. If it were, we should hang the maniac, who is the most dangerous murderer. Society may defend itself by other means than by destroying life. Massachusetts can build prisons strong enough to secure the community forever against convicted felons. You may have been close minded about capital punishment before you read my paper and if you were you still probably are, but the one thing I hope you saw were all the sides and views of capital punishment.   

Electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, guillotine, and garroting. When you hear these words what do you think of? Do you feel frightened? When some hear these words they tend to say, " Oh they deserve it". In the court system that is not always the case....

Words: 2441 View(s): 441 Comment(s): 0
Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard...Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard for the wellbeing of others in society. These are the seeds allowing the roots of activities promoting racial discrimination to sprout. Out of that, comes the growth of a fearful social epidemic, in which uneducated persons put their destructive thoughts and viewpoints into action. These criminal activities have been dubbed "Hate Crimes" and have plagues society as far back as one can remember. Hate Crimes, in varying degrees, can consist of something as minute as a derogatory comment, to something as serious as an act of murder. The common thread is that the offence was committed because of the victim's ethnicity or race. Hate Crimes violate the human rights of society, and rob minorities of the dignity and respect they deserve. Everyone is entitled to live free from discrimination and harassment. However, this entitlement is infringed upon when Hate Crimes are committed. Mandel, 11 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a controversial approach to protecting the rights of citizens. Section 2 outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all peoples in society, in an attempt to ensure the protection of all civil liberties. However, in many cases, these freedoms can act as loopholes, clearing offenders of the hate crimes they continue to commit, posing a threat to the livelihood of minority communities in Canada. Dickinson,146 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a freedom of conscience and religion; b freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c freedom of peaceful assembly; and d freedom of association. The freedoms, as stated above serve as a controversial 'gray area', in which Section 2 of the Charter can be manipulated and 'bent' to serve as both offence and defense in the judicial reasoning of crimes based on racial prejudice. Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly are two closely related rights. Both liberties, provided by Section 2 of the Charter, "protect the freedom of individuals to join together to form a union" and the right to gather together for the purpose of lobbying peacefully, in the hopes of reaching a common goal Coombs, 27. In British Columbia's past, Nazi Fundamentalist groups have attempted to gather publicly and demonstrate against ethnic integration, and spout their views on how the White Aryan race is superior to all other minorities. Much of this activity is not tolerated by authorities because "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" Martin, 39. Allowing such open promotion of hatred, infringes on every individual in society's right to be free from discrimination and harassment. This behavior creates an environment oppressed with inequality, injustice and ignorance- not conducive to racial harmony in a multi-cultural society Coombs, 17. Freedom of conscience and religion gives ethnic and religious minorities, such as the Jewish peoples, the right to practice their beliefs- and customs associated with their values. Many "Jewish persons have been excluded from clubs and universities", based on their race and religion Dickinson, 93. The rights of Jews and other religious and racial minorities have been infringed upon throughout history. Hate Crimes have persecuted followers of religious and faith groups such as the Jews and Christians, worldwide. Holocaust deniers continue to live in the belief that there is a widespread Jewish conspiracy, and that the Jews were never oppressed. In British Columbia, Nazi fundamentalist views are rampant Martin, 78. This legislation in the Charter is an attempt to prevent discriminatory conduct on the basis of one's race and religion, contributing to a societal environment that is conducive to religious growth and freedom Roland, 2. Hate Crime Offenders take advantage of the Charter providing "the right to declare religious beliefs openly"¦without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination" Dickinson, 142. Various groups that preach hatred, such as White Supremacists, claim that their 'religion' a specific denomination of Christianity deems that they, being superior to all minorities, should therefore act as a dominating force in society. Every individual is entitled to their personal belief system. However, beliefs and values rooted deeply in ignorance, selfish pride, and hate, will only contribute to racist attitudes and the oppression of the minorities and disadvantaged groups in Canada. The freedom to have conscience and religious belief is "subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Roland , 146. Prejudice beliefs, laced with hatred, create a society where people feel bound by the shackles of manipulation and domination. "It is discriminatory practice for a person or group of persons acting in concert to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination" Coombs, 86. The fundamental right to freedom of expression has been a source of controversy since the establishment of the Charter, in 1972. It has been said that liberty in thought and communication is "little less vital to a man's mind and spirit than breathing is to his physical existence" Justice Rand of the Ontario courts, 1957. There are few areas which produce as much disagreement as limitations on freedom of speech and, by extension, limitations on the freedom to be exposed to the ideas of others. Some would argue that although certain forms of expression are disagreeable, the risks involved in eroding this right are so great that there should be virtually no limit on it. Lobby groups, such as Canadians for decency, advocate the protection of Canadians from media promoting an undesirable stereotype of a particular group Mandel, 94. The opposing arguments against censorship states that "insofar as material does not constitute libel, fraud, incitement, mischief, perjury, or otherwise endanger fair trials and legal hearings, it cannot be censored, however disgusting or offensive or otherwise injurious it may be" Coombs, 88. A blatant example is the case of Ernst Zundel, a holocaust denier. Although he willfully published statements he knew to be false, causing injury or mischief to a specific religious group, he has not been convicted of promoting hatred in North America Dickinson, 171. On the Internet, for instance, he continues to share his discriminatory convictions with the public. In conclusion, the four fundamental freedoms of the Charter are cause for a great 'gray area' in the rights of Canadian citizens and the limits imposed on them. Section 1 of the Charter is the most explicit in defining the limits of the Charter Mandel, 4: "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 may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Although this section guarantees the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter, it also states that they are not absolute, but are subject to reasonable limits. In other words, governments may restrict rights if they can show there are compelling reasons for doing so, which can be justified in a free and democratic society Coombs, 81. This provision serves two vital purposes. On the one hand, it is a guarantee that our rights won't be restricted unless it can be shown to be clearly justified. On the other hand, it ensures that defensible objectives of society will receive careful consideration. Society is granted the right to be free of discrimination and harassment Coombs, 82. It is these two objectives that are used both ways, to defend and oppose activities dealing with the harboring and promotion of hate-provoking discrimination, on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against an identifiable group.   

Ignorance, pride, hatred and a disregard for the wellbeing of others in society. These are the seeds allowing the roots of activities promoting racial discrimination to sprout. Out of that, comes the growth of a fearful social epidemic, in which uneducated persons put their destructive thoughts and viewpoints into action....

Words: 1300 View(s): 274 Comment(s): 0