TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
UML wrote:I not agreeing with PNM bro....i just want tuh see some neck pop
DEFEAT
Absolutely no PNM support for hanging bill
By Ria Taitt Political Editor
Story Created: Feb 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM ECT
By a vote of 29 for/11 against, the "hanging bill" was guillotined in the House of Representatives yesterday, as it failed to secure the requisite support from the Opposition PNM to become law. The bill required a three-fourths majority, which mathematically works out to exactly 31.5 in the 41-member Parliament or 32 votes.
"The bill has not met that requirement, so as such it is defeated," House Speaker Wade Mark declared yesterday, bringing an end to a debate which was marked by strident criticisms, particularly from the Government side.
A last-minute attempt by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar to meet with Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley to work out a consensus position was rejected by Rowley. The bill had been brought to amend the Constitution to make special provision with respect to capital offences.
Rowley had earlier asked Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, during his wind up, to say whether he was prepared to draft a separate bill dealing with the petitions to international bodies and not have it as part of the current bill, which is an amendment to the Constitution.
When the Prime Minister attempted to respond, Rowley snapped: "I am not talking to you, I am talking to the Attorney General."
This caused uproar on the Government benches.
Ramlogan, riding on that momentum, declared: "Unlike the split in political personalities on that side, when you speak to the Attorney General, you are speaking to the Honourable Prime Minister."
He added that the PNM had one leader, one want-to-be leader and one leader coming up in the flanks so one did not know who to talk to in that party.
Ramlogan said the PNM had taken this serious debate on hanging and transformed it into a "political gayelle", in which MPs were trying to outdo each other because their internal election campaign was coming.
But by the time the committee stage (final stage of the debate) began, Persad-Bissessar wanted to talk. She indicated that she had tried to meet Rowley before the start of the sitting and was advised that he was in caucus. She was therefore asking that the House be suspended so that they (Government and Opposition) could meet then.
Rowley hit back, however, that "my understanding is that your Attorney General has spoken for you" so there was no need to further discussion.
"Mr Speaker, through you, we see this measure as an important measure and should it be that the honourable leader has taken the words in that regard it is most unfortunate, because at the end of the day it would be innocent people of this land who would suffer," she said.
Earlier, Attorney General Ramlogan said that for every murdered person and every murderer that escapes the hangman's noose, the PNM must be held responsible.
He said he had tried the "diplomatic, friendly route" to give the PNM support, but it had failed to rise to the occasion because its political concern was not to "make the People's Partnership look good".
"It is political hooliganism of the worse kind ... holding an entire country to ransom and standing in the way of a vision ..." Ramlogan said, condemning the PNM "political obstructionism".
The Attorney General, however, during the course of his wind up, made another amendment which the PNM asked for, which was to give a convicted murderer 18 months, as opposed to 12 months, for his petition to the Human Rights Commission to be heard.
Ramlogan cited a number of legal authorities—Martin Daly, Russell Martineau and Fenton Ramsahoye—as well as the very Privy Council, who advised that the best way to pass legislation designed to do what the bill hoped to do, was to amend the Constitution explicitly, rather than pass separate legislation, in the way the PNM was advocating. He noted that such advice was sought and received by PNM while in office and they failed to act on that advice.
"I cry shame on the Opposition!" he said, as his colleagues chorused: "Shame! Shame!"
Ramlogan said he planned to expose the "political deception and hypocrisy". He read out a list of persons, including children and aged persons, who were brutally murdered, as he slammed Colm Imbert for saying that the Government should not rush the bill through. He said the PNM never took a personal interest in the victims of crime. It was only after the Prime Minister visited the home of Daniel Guerra that, "after never having visited a single home of a victim of crime ... all of a sudden they find their high heel shoes ... to reach ... quite down a.. Gasparillo to show that the PNM cares".
Saying that charity begins at home, he said the PNM MPs never visit crime victims in their own constituency.
"Don't cry crocodile tears in Gasparillo now," he thundered. See Page 4
What Government did to try to win PNM support: a) Government removed all the clauses that categorise murder b) Government placed a limit of 18 months for the hearing of petitions to the Human Rights Commission. What PNM wanted and didn't get: a) Enacting the provision which deals with the processing of an application or petition to an international body, as a separate act, without entrenching it in the Constitution. This, the PNM argued, would allow the State to escape the possible giving up of abolitionist challenges at the Privy Council. The PNM said it was prepared to support this separate act, passed with a 3/4 majority
Conscience vote on death penalty
Story Created: Feb 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM ECT
The Constitution Amendment (Capital Offences) Bill, better known as the Hanging Bill, was defeated yesterday in the Lower House. The Opposition PNM refused to give the necessary support that the Bill, requiring a three-fourths majority to become law.
It speaks volumes about our political culture that both the People's Partnership and the PNM support the death penalty, yet were unable to come to agreement on this legislation. The PNM has insisted that the Bill is flawed and would not achieve its purpose of speeding up executions. Although the Government removed its major amendment, which created categories of homicide to replace the mandatory death penalty for any kind of murder, this failed to persuade the Opposition.
Since opinion surveys have consistently shown that the majority of citizens support capital punishment, the Government may want to try again and see if there can be a meeting of minds between itself and the Opposition on this contentious issue. PNM leader Keith Rowley had refused to even meet with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar before the vote was taken, which seems rather myopic since politics is about compromise and listening to opposing views. On the other hand, the Government did not exactly use diplomatic language in its bid to woo the Opposition, even going so far as to accuse the other side of being happy about the crime situation.
Politicians on both sides of the House would also do well to pay attention to public opinion on resuming executions, since one survey carried out last year suggests that, despite the extremist calls of some individuals who want to see criminals hanged in the public square, the majority of citizens have more nuanced views than politicians give them credit for. An opinion survey carried out in 2010 by Oxford University professor Roger Hood and Trinidadian psychologist Florence Seemungal found that almost two-thirds of the populace favour a discretionary death penalty rather than a mandatory one. That implies that the Opposition PNM lost political points by insisting on the removal of this clause, as did the Government by acceding.
It is also noteworthy that only one-third of citizens would continue supporting capital punishment if there was any possibility of innocent persons being executed. This means that building trust in the Police Service and the judiciary is essential. Politicians, particularly on the Government side, may also not want to ignore the findings of another poll carried out last month by UWI's Psychological Research Centre, which reported an ethnic difference in the level of support for hanging. This poll found that 86 percent of Indo-Trinidadians supported the death penalty, as compared to just 64 percent of Afro-Trinidadians. That alone could create political tension if and when hangings are resumed.
Given such caveats, both sides may want to consider lifting the party whip on this emotive issue, and allow a conscience vote. That may at least raise the level of debate in the House.
rossi wrote:Yo RASC, you got this whole 12 - 18 month thing wrong. It was initially 12 months and the PNM asked for 18 months and were given it. They made real noise to get that 18 months.
RASC wrote:UML wrote:I not agreeing with PNM bro....i just want tuh see some neck pop
Well if you want to see neck-pop you'd have no choice to agree with Rowley and the PNM.
How you gonna put a big stinking clause that the person is allowed an 18month window to hear back from the International Human Rights Council Re: Their Hanging. And if we don't hear back from them...it's constitutionally illegal to proceed with the execution.
You said it yourself...do away with the Human Rights Council.they don't wanna see anyone get hanged
Therefore you DO agree with the PNM
UML wrote:RASC wrote:UML wrote:I not agreeing with PNM bro....i just want tuh see some neck pop
Well if you want to see neck-pop you'd have no choice to agree with Rowley and the PNM.
How you gonna put a big stinking clause that the person is allowed an 18month window to hear back from the International Human Rights Council Re: Their Hanging. And if we don't hear back from them...it's constitutionally illegal to proceed with the execution.
You said it yourself...do away with the Human Rights Council.they don't wanna see anyone get hanged
Therefore you DO agree with the PNM
NO....it is the UNC/PP that has a REPUTATION for hanging......how has the PNM done in comparison?!!
"I cannot support the death penalty. Our criminal justice system is not perfect. A criminal trial is based on available evidence and this does not necessarily mean the truth. Bribery of police officers, judicial officers, and the intimidation or execution of key witnesses, are means by which one can manipulate criminal justice. I cannot say that it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted. (In fact, the advent of DNA testing has led to the freeing of several prisoners in the US because it subsequently proved that the culprit was some other person)."
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 335 guests
