Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not convinced that an out-dated poll is relevant today.
Capital punishment was eliminated by Pierre Trudeau in 1976. There is an alignment between voting Conservative and support for the death penalty, voting Liberal and opposition to the death penalty.
Given that Canadians today not only vote Liberal, but also for the son of the man who eliminated capital punishment, I think a new poll is required.
"Three-in-four Canadians who voted for the Conservative Party in the 2011 election (78%) support the death penalty, while the level of opposition is highest among Liberal Party voters in the last federal ballot (42%)."
Okay, Lieneke, it looks like you and I are talking about two different things. I'm talking about a legal system; you're talking about differences in criminal law, which is only a small part of a legal system. So let me explain my position as to what I mean by "legal system."
As I have said before, Canada uses a common-law legal system, like the US. This is why I said that our two systems were similar.
A common-law legal system uses the law of precedent; that is, decisions follow similar-fact decisions that have happened before. Sometimes, they build upon it: notice how Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 builds upon Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, in regards to principles regarding punitive damages. Sometimes, the old law is found to be invalid and the decision is overturned; see, for example how Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 SCR 701 has been rendered pretty much toothless by Honda Canada Inc. v Keays, [2008] 2 SCR 362. And sometimes, they establish and clarify things, as you will see in the development of the moral rights doctrine in Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807.
Heck, sometimes, we bring in decisions from other common-law countries. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, [1892] EWCA Civ. 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, is an English decision that is still taught in law school contracts classes in all the common-law world (including the US) to this day. Or you might examine Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v. Taylor, (1936) 37 SR (NSW) 322, from Australia. More recently, the intersection of intellectual property rights and parody was nicely shaped by Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), which our American friends gave us. None of these are Canadian decisions, but as they come from common-law jurisdictions, they could be persuasive (but never binding) in ours.
You will notice that none of the decisions I've mentioned so far are criminal in nature. That's intentional; to inform you that "the law" is more than just the criminal law. It pervades every aspect of your life, from the coffee you bought at Starbucks today (contract law) to buying a house or car (contract and property), to rear-ending another car (tort), to "why can't Ottawa shut down the Alberta oil sands?" (constitutional). Want to incorporate your small business in order to protect yourself personally from creditors hounding you when your business can't pay its bills? You're looking at corporate law. Want to appeal your property tax assessment, or advance a claim under human rights legislation? You're looking at administrative law. And it should be no surprise that all these things, governed by precedent, exist in the USA too. Why? Because both the USA and Canada use the same legal system: common-law.
You might contrast the common-law system of the US and Canada (and others) with a civil-law system. This is the system used in Europe (with the exception of the UK and Ireland) and the province of Quebec and the state of Louisiana. Here, precedent plays no role, all the rules are codified (yes, even those for private-law matters such as contract, property, and tort), and the judge makes a decision based on how the facts stack up against the rules. He or she rarely to never uses precedent, as a judge in a common-law jurisdiction would.
Enough for now, and I will address your other remarks regarding specifics of criminal law in a future post. Right now, I hope you can see that when you mention "legal system," I immediately think of "a common-law legal system or a civil-law legal system?" as opposed to "double jeopardy and death penalty." But I will address your remarks on those later.
Regarding legal system, yes, there are significant differences. This paper outlines 10.
Some differences are: In Canada, Judges are appointed, in the US they are elected. In Canada prosecutors are hired, in the US they are elected. Prosecutors in the US will make decisions about whether to proceed with a view to retaining their elected position. Prosecutors in Canada do not have that handicap. Canada has a three court system, similar to the EU. The US is unfamiliar with the concept of a case moving through those three levels.
In the US, an employee can be fired without cause. In Canada, an employee must be given cause, or notice.
In the US, a case is assigned to a Judge, in Canada, a case is assigned to a court - where any Judge in that court can hear the motions of the case.
You are aware that in Canada, we have the same double jeopardy rule? See Charter s. 11 (h).
Your question about appeals is valid though, so let's explore that.
An appeal, in the US as in Canada, turns on a question of law. It never turns on a question of fact; those are settled at the trial level. So an appeal in each country is never a do-over of the trial (thus rendering moot the "double-jeopardy" argument).
Understand, first, what a trial is: it finds the facts. Then, the trial judge applies the law to those facts, and renders a decision. Sometimes, the trial judge errs in law, which gives rise to an appeal.
An appeal always asks for a justification of how the law was applied to the facts found at trial, and argues as to how the law was wrongly applied. If the Canadian Crown finds an error in the law applied, then of course, it is entitled to ask for an appeal. It is not entitled to a do-over of the trial. This is not double-jeopardy as per Charter s. 11 (h), as I think you will agree. All the Crown can argue is an error in law. Not in fact.
True, the Supreme Court of Canada has sent cases back to be tried de novo, (as the Supreme Court of the United States has, see for example Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)) but with strict conditions, such as "the Crown cannot use evidence illegally obtained under s. 8 of the Charter, as per Charter s. 24(2)," which may cause the Crown to withdraw the matter entirely. The de novo principle means that double jeopardy does not come into play. And if it does--then how do you explain Gideon v. Wainwright in the US system?
Once again, an appellate argument uses precedent (common-law system, just like the US), and that's pretty much all it does. Having explained all this, I must ask: How different are the legal systems of the US and Canada?
A similar origin of Common Law, which means a system of case law based on judges and courts, does not result in a similar legal system today.
In Canada and the EU, a prosecutor can appeal a verdict. In the US, that cannot happen. That is a significant difference. Double jeopardy in the US means that regardless of new information or error in law, a prosecutor cannot appeal a verdict, in Canada it means something entirely different. In the US an appeal means a do-over. In Canada and the EU, it does not - in part because of the three tier legal system in Canada and the EU.
One reason that I am aware of differences between US and Canadian/EU law is due to following the years long trial for the murder of British national Meredith Kercher in Italy. When the prosecutor appealed a not guilty verdict, people in the US were beside themselves that US law did not apply in Italy. When the appeal meant that only that evidence which was successfully appealed would be heard in the next phase of the trial, again people from the US were up in arms that it was not a complete do-over trail. When the case moved through the three court system, again people in the US were dumbfounded that a case could be sent back to a lower court. There was a huge amount of upset and confusion amongst people in the US regarding the court system.
I'd most likely like Vancouver. I guess what I wanted to say is, a trip to Vancouver and a trip to Seattle would be on the same level for me. Very interesting, but very familiar territory if you know what I mean. A trip to Vienna, OTOH, a whole different experience.
I mean, in all my visits to Canada, I never really felt abroad. Same language, same customs, same building types, same cars, same road scenery, same food, very similar mentality. Yes there are differences, but they are not the other world differences. In some ways, there's probably more in common between me and someone in London ON, than some dude in deep rural South.
Putting on my " tourism Vancouver hat "
Seattle and Vancouver share climates, but not much else. A lot of people assume that Vancouver and Seattle are similar, because they are on the west coast of North America.
Vancouver has a totally different vibe than Seattle. It's Vancouver's urban core that city planners in North America look to for ideas. It's Vancouver that has made it downtown one of the most liveable in the world, filled with parks, beaches and a connecting seawall ( pedestrian/bike path ) that stretches for 29k. It connects many neighbourhood, beaches, parks, restaurants etc.
Also the mountains are right here on the harbour. It's a stunning backdrop.
Seattle has it's charms, and I love visiting, but as I've pointed out many times on this forum ( and have gotten bashed for it LOL ) there is a reason why Vancouver gets mentioned in all those lists as " most beautiful " " most liveable " etc, when Seattle does not.
About London Ont. etc. There is a lot of north south similarities, depending on how far south. LOL. I would find more in common with someone from Seattle, San Fran and eve L.A. than someone from London or NYC. Toronto, would be like talking to a local for me though.
The things you mentioned are all visual and surface type things. Dig deeper into the overall psychology of a place, and you will notice differences.
Funny you mention Vienna. I've been and stayed with friends of friends, so got a localish kind of view. It's beautiful, I enjoyed wandering around...but it didn't grab me. Not sure why.
Seattle and Vancouver share climates, but not much else. A lot of people assume that Vancouver and Seattle are similar, because they are on the west coast of North America.
Vancouver has a totally different vibe than Seattle. It's Vancouver's urban core that city planners in North America look to for ideas. It's Vancouver that has made it downtown one of the most liveable in the world, filled with parks, beaches and a connecting seawall ( pedestrian/bike path ) that stretches for 29k. It connects many neighbourhood, beaches, parks, restaurants etc.
Also the mountains are right here on the harbour. It's a stunning backdrop.
Seattle has it's charms, and I love visiting, but as I've pointed out many times on this forum ( and have gotten bashed for it LOL ) there is a reason why Vancouver gets mentioned in all those lists as " most beautiful " " most liveable " etc, when Seattle does not.
About London Ont. etc. There is a lot of north south similarities, depending on how far south. LOL. I would find more in common with someone from Seattle, San Fran and eve L.A. than someone from London or NYC. Toronto, would be like talking to a local for me though.
The things you mentioned are all visual and surface type things. Dig deeper into the overall psychology of a place, and you will notice differences.
Funny you mention Vienna. I've been and stayed with friends of friends, so got a localish kind of view. It's beautiful, I enjoyed wandering around...but it didn't grab me. Not sure why.
Ok, replace Seattle with San Fran
What I was trying to say was not that Vancouver is just as boring as Seattle, but rather that it doesn't seem such a foreign city to me. Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Toronto, Portland, Chicago all have their own unique atmosphere yet none feels more "foreign" to me than the other. In a way, I suspect for a Canadian from Toronto or Vancouver, Portland and Seattle would feel less foreign than Quebec City. Including the mentality.
And I still stand by my assertion that while the "overall psychology of things" is different in most places, an educated middle class average person in a Detroit suburb probably has more in common with an educated middle class average person in a London ON than with someone living somewhere in deep rural Kentucky.
I do agree about Vienna, it's a beautiful city that somehow seemed sterile. I still vividly remember Prague yet little stands out when I think about Vienna, which we spent an equal amount of time in.
You have running water, functioning toilets and insects don't kill you in most of the world.
Perhaps you need to travel a bit, or perhaps you just need to grab a book and educate yourself a bit more.
Perhaps you should travel a bit more.
The access to the running water, functioning toilets, and nasty incects depends on your destination. I visited places that people worked in, not tourist traps. In Mexico, China, and especially India you still have homes and whole villages where water has to be obtained via a hand cranked pump on the street (and has a strong iron aftertaste, and must be boiled first). A toilet is often just a hole in the ground, with places to put you feet while you're squatting. And the incects / snakes / rodents are everywhere. Well, not half of them is trying to kill you, so that was an exaggeration, this one I can admit.
Mexico seems more universally developed, China is spotty, India is pretty much in the Middle Ages outside of large cites. But I would strongly suggest to boil your water in any of these countries. And never assume there's toilet paper, or even the possibility to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. And don't ever go to the bathroom after dinner if you can't tolerate the smell of a large horse sable on a hot sunny afternoon.
Cause we cant ever remember to bring an umbrella (British Columbia) or
snow shoes, (Toronto) and the indians and quebecoise have claimed everything else.
Cause we cant ever remember to bring an umbrella (British Columbia) or
snow shoes, (Toronto) and the indians and quebecoise have claimed everything else.
Arizona here I come !
Enjoy your visit to the world's largest gravel pit where you cannot swing a cat without hitting an illegal messican and where dust allergies will keep you inside 24/7.
Been there done that, had the valley fever "T" shirt to prove it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
