Guillotines on American soil? What are they up to?

[InForAPennyInForApound]

http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl020529.htm

Boggles the mind!

[filippo lippi]

Truth Provided Newsletter 4-29-2002

...

Greetings everyone in these last hours of Earth's history

About 50,000 hours later...

[InForAPennyInForApound]

About 50,000 hours later...

Yep, and we all been accounted for!

[InForAPennyInForApound]

Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/1996 Sessions

HB 1274 - Death penalty; guillotine provisions

Code Sections - 17-10-38/ 17-10-44 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
1- 1 To amend Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the Official
1- 2 Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the death penalty
1- 3 generally, so as to provide a statement of legislative
1- 4 policy; to provide for death by guillotine; to provide for
1- 5 applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other
1- 6 purposes.
SECTION 1.
1- 8 The General Assembly finds that while prisoners condemned to
1- 9 death may wish to donate one or more of their organs for
1-10 transplant, any such desire is thwarted by the fact that
1-11 electrocution makes all such organs unsuitable for
1-12 transplant. The intent of the General Assembly in enacting
1-13 this legislation is to provide for a method of execution
1-14 which is compatible with the donation of organs by a
1-15 condemned prisoner.


Is this also happening in the UK?

[Matt]

Is this also happening in the UK?

Interesting... I've often been told that the death Penalty would be unconstitutional in the UK dues to the Human Rights Act 1998 which passed into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights.

However Article 2 the right to life clearly states

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

Can anybody clear up the confusion I have...

[Cuddles]

Well, it's a bit tricky for anything to be unconstitutional in the UK, since we don't have a written constitution. However, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible for the death penalty to become legal again. It's very unlikely, and I hope it never happens, but it's certainly not all that hard to make new laws and repeal or change old ones. The international community can put pressure on countries, but if the UK really wanted to have a death penalty there's bugger all anyone else could do to stop us.

[brodski]

Well, it's a bit tricky for anything to be unconstitutional in the UK,

nope.

since we don't have a written constitution.

nope.

However, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible for the death penalty to become legal again. It's very unlikely, and I hope it never happens, but it's certainly not all that hard to make new laws and repeal or change old ones. The international community can put pressure on countries, but if the UK really wanted to have a death penalty there's bugger all anyone else could do to stop us.

yep.


And now for the explanation. Wedo have a written constitution, what we don't have is a codified constitution. What this means is that all the acts of parliament, treaties, records of court decisions (much making up "common law"), written rules of parliamentary procedure and other legal and pseudo-legal documents make up our constitution. What we don 't have is a constitution codified into a single document.
Something is unconstitutional in the UK if the government attempts to do something which is currently prohibited, without first changing the constitution through legislation or other means.

In order to re-establish the death penalty we would, however, have to withdraw from the EU (or negotiate a change to, or exception from, the ECHR), as protocols 6 and 13 (amendments in other words) restrict, and abolish the death penalty respectively. These supersede/ amended article 2.

[Matt]

In order to re-establish the death penalty we would, however, have to withdraw from the EU (or negotiate a change to, or exception from, the ECHR), as protocols 6 and 13 (amendments in other words) restrict, and abolish the death penalty respectively. These supersede/ amended article 2.

Thanks Brodski, that makes more sense, Found protocol 6,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998..._en_3#sch1-pt3 In the 1998 Act

Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

<H4 class=LegScheduleChapter>Article 2 Death penalty in time of war

A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.

I see "imminent threat of war" as a fair to middling sized loophole which I see protocol 13 closes, however this was passed in 2002.

Was this immediately incorporated into British Law under provisions already in the 1998 Human Rights Act or was (is?) further British Legislation required?
</H4>

[brodski]

Was this immediately incorporated into British Law under provisions already in the 1998 Human Rights Act or was (is?) further British Legislation required?[/I][/SIZE]
</H4>

These protocols were incorperated into Brittish law, and the Brittish constiution when parliment ratified them.

[Cuddles]

And now for the explanation. Wedo have a written constitution, what we don't have is a codified constitution. What this means is that all the acts of parliament, treaties, records of court decisions (much making up "common law"), written rules of parliamentary procedure and other legal and pseudo-legal documents make up our constitution. What we don 't have is a constitution codified into a single document.
Something is unconstitutional in the UK if the government attempts to do something which is currently prohibited, without first changing the constitution through legislation or other means.

I've this argument plenty of times before, but I still don't buy it. Basically, it says that British law is the British constitution. The whole point of a constitution is that it gives the framework in which laws can be made, so to say they are both the same thing just doesn't make sense. Does Britain have an estrablished legal framework built up over hundreds of years? Of course. Do we have a constitution? No.

The easiest way to think about it is simply ask how often are potential laws refered to as unconstitutional? In America, all the time. In Britain, never. Even when they're contemplating things like indefinite detention without trial and other things that couldn't possibly be constitutional, no-one ever says that they are unconstitutional because we don't have one. They are simply illegal. Or not, of course.

In order to re-establish the death penalty we would, however, have to withdraw from the EU (or negotiate a change to, or exception from, the ECHR), as protocols 6 and 13 (amendments in other words) restrict, and abolish the death penalty respectively. These supersede/ amended article 2.

Or we could just re-restablish the death penalty and say "So what are you going to do about it"? I seriously doubt they would actually kick us out. EU law is all well and good, but I suspect the main reason it works is because no-one has bothered testing it.

[Matt]

Surely all a constitutiojn is, is a set of laws that define how laws are made. We have the Parliament act and a whole bunch of other laws that fit this description. In what way are they not our constitution?

[Mongrel]

Surely all a constitutiojn is, is a set of laws that define how laws are made. We have the Parliament act and a whole bunch of other laws that fit this description. In what way are they not our constitution?

Agreed - OED has this for the definition;

constitution

• noun 1 a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or organization is governed. 2 composition or formation. 3 a person’s physical or mental state.

(here)

So we started first with the Magna Carta

[SKIRRID5]

Regarding the death penalty in the US, I love that Christian Reconstruction guy (forgotten his name). When his dream of a US under fundamental Biblical law arrives, he thinks execution should be really Biblical - by stoning, because stones are cheap and won't cost the state much. I'm sure he means it, as these people aren't noted for their sense of humour.

[Pebble]

http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl020529.htm

Boggles the mind!

The original article mentions 15,000 guillotines being ordered for Georgia & Montana. Even the most optimistic of the Christian Right wouldn't invest this much in the technology at this point in time.

I suspect confusion with other types of guillotines:

http://www.kellysearch.com/us-product-673.html