Why should it? Why should this "modern society" of your hold back on absolute justice. A modern society in my opinion should administer proper and absolute justice, no exception.
It is unchangeable because Ireland voted by referendum to abolish the death penalty and like I have said Ireland signed up to the ECHR which also bans the death penalty. Hence why this thread is moot.
Whether the death penalty is right or wrong is a matter of opinion but it can never be reintroduced into Ireland.
You're thinking too short term about these petty legal difficulties. You can easily hold another another referendum if you like and Ireland's membership of the EU isn't something that always going to be guaranteed.
No, it is not possible to reverse a constitutional amendment.
The ECHR is incorporated into Irish law by the European Convention of Human Rights Act. It's not dependent on Ireland's membership of the EU. Irish legislation adopts the Convention.
The death penalty can never be reintroduced into Ireland.
Instead of a life for a life it should be life means life. I would increase sentences across the board not just for murder and especially for carrying a knife. Attempted murder or the charge is called should also carry a life sentence. This might stop the huge number of stabbings in this country n recent times
and so be it, people can find their own recompense, just don't get caught.
Yes it is, via referendum. It has been done many times before. Do you think that the constitution we have at the moment can never be changed?
So if Ireland's membership of the EU is not dependent on the ratification of the ECHR, therefore if Ireland revokes the ECHR it will not jepordise its membership, and if the Irish constitution can be changed by referendum, then it is still possible for Ireland to revoke the ECHR and create its own Bill of Rights that doesn't go so far as to make the death penalty unconstitutional.
Also, government legislation can be changed by via parliamentary statute or judicial review, but I think we're talking about constitutional law here, so it's different.
It can if public opinion was to change for whatever reason and a referendum was to be held thereafter.
I'm banging my head off a wall here...
If the Constitution is changed by referendum (which is the only way to amend the Constitution) that amendment can never be reversed.
The 21st Amendment to the Constituion introduced a constitutional ban on the death penalty. It amended the Constitution.
Constitutional amendments cannot (and have never been) reversed.
Used to be for it.
Now I'm older and wiser, totally against it no matter what a person has done.
Maybe for the crowd in here.
I would absolutely agree with the death penalty for crimes that you mention on condition that if prosecutors, judges, juries and the executioner agreed to forfeit their lives in the case of an innocent person having been put to death.
But can't you introduce another amendment to the constitution via another referendum?
Wasn't that nearly done in the case of abortion in Ireland? For example the referendum for the Eight Amendment in 1983 was accepted by the people and amended article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Years later in 1992 the referendum for the Twelfth Amendment, which proposed a further amendment to article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, was rejected by the people, but if it was accepted by the people it would have amended article 40.3.3 again.
The point here is, that I can't see how such a procedure would be any different if a campaign was launched to change/delete the amendments made in the Twenty-first Amendment via a new referendum that would introduce a further amendment, as nearly happened in the case of abortion in Ireland.
People who commit violent acts and repeat offenders of petty crime need to be punished more severely. Heinous crimes should have mandatory sentances with no early release.
At a certain point it becomes more important to protect the public than to try rehabilitate someone who has no interest in it.
Hi I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I'm not even a lawyer but I find it hard to think that if a decision is made it can never be changed back, never ever.
So I had a quick look and I came up with this from Wikipedia -
START OF SNIPPET
Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of IrelandFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland provided that children born on the island of Ireland to parents who were both non-nationals would no longer have a constitutional right to citizenship of the Republic of Ireland. It was effected by the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Act, 2004, which was approved by referendum on 11 June 2004 and signed into law on the 24 June of the same year. It partially reversed changes that had previously been made to the constitution as part of the Belfast Agreement of 1998.
END OF SNIPPET
Correct me if I'm wrong but does this not say (in bold) that an ammendment has been reversed back in some parts. As I said I'm not a constitional lawyer so point out to me where I'm going wrong here.