corrected 8
DISCUSSION
The hypothesis was neither confirmed of null. The results from the respondents were of mixed views as to whether the continued use of the Privy Council is detrimental. There was however, the majority of participants agreed with the hypothesis. All Six respondents in response to question one and two were of the view that the privy council cannot bring justice to the country of Trinidad and Tobago especially in the area of crime as our crime rates have are disturbingly high. The Privy Council upholds appeals in death sentence cases through modern jurisprudence. Our democracy is in need of the death sentence to remedy crime. The case of Balkissoon Roodial v The State, Trinidad case said that the death penalty in that case was remitted back to the court of appeal from the Privy Council on the grounds that such a death sentence violates the constitutional right to a right to life. Also in Pratt v Morgan the death penalty was disregarded by the Privy Council on similar grounds. Caribbean peoples in a survey stated that the death penalty was the only way to stay away from violent crimes. This shows that the decisions of the Privy Council are not suited for a local jurisprudence; the death penalty is the only effective way to reduce the crimes of a typical Caribbean country. The Privy Council is against such laws. The Prime minister and former Attorney at law of Trinidad and Tobago Mrs Kamla Persad Bisseassar in an newspaper article dated 25th April 2013 stated her argument for the death sentence stated that “disputes consonant with the pristine principles of justice and fair play we must say goodbye to the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.’ This means that it does not have the capability to bring justice to Trinidad because the law does not suit the society of Trinidad. The Caribbean Court of Justice was affirmed by participants in response to question three as the ideal replacement for the Privy Council. The reasons highlighted by the
The hypothesis was neither confirmed of null. The results from the respondents were of mixed views as to whether the continued use of the Privy Council is detrimental. There was however, the majority of participants agreed with the hypothesis. All Six respondents in response to question one and two were of the view that the privy council cannot bring justice to the country of Trinidad and Tobago especially in the area of crime as our crime rates have are disturbingly high. The Privy Council upholds appeals in death sentence cases through modern jurisprudence. Our democracy is in need of the death sentence to remedy crime. The case of Balkissoon Roodial v The State, Trinidad case said that the death penalty in that case was remitted back to the court of appeal from the Privy Council on the grounds that such a death sentence violates the constitutional right to a right to life. Also in Pratt v Morgan the death penalty was disregarded by the Privy Council on similar grounds. Caribbean peoples in a survey stated that the death penalty was the only way to stay away from violent crimes. This shows that the decisions of the Privy Council are not suited for a local jurisprudence; the death penalty is the only effective way to reduce the crimes of a typical Caribbean country. The Privy Council is against such laws. The Prime minister and former Attorney at law of Trinidad and Tobago Mrs Kamla Persad Bisseassar in an newspaper article dated 25th April 2013 stated her argument for the death sentence stated that “disputes consonant with the pristine principles of justice and fair play we must say goodbye to the Privy Council as our final court of appeal.’ This means that it does not have the capability to bring justice to Trinidad because the law does not suit the society of Trinidad. The Caribbean Court of Justice was affirmed by participants in response to question three as the ideal replacement for the Privy Council. The reasons highlighted by the