The Political Attractiveness of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This article addresses the question of why Canada still has mandatory minimum sentences despite inquiries by a number of commissions that suggest abolition. It suggests that politicians and judges alike not only promote mandatory minimum policies, but also speak about them in much the same way - as a way of fighting crime. Though the evidence is clear that mandatory minimum sentences are not an effective crime-control strategy, and actually disrupt the sensible operation of the justice system, it is apparent that the deterrence message they deliver is still functional for politicians and is rarely challenged by judges

The Political Attractiveness of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This article addresses the question of why Canada still has mandatory minimum sentences despite inquiries by a number of commissions that suggest abolition. It suggests that politicians and judges alike not only promote mandatory minimum policies, but also speak about them in much the same way - as a way of fighting crime. Though the evidence is clear that mandatory minimum sentences are not an effective crime-control strategy, and actually disrupt the sensible operation of the justice system, it is apparent that the deterrence message they deliver is still functional for politicians and is rarely challenged by judges

Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the Deliberations of Simulated Juries

In the past, there have been three major approaches to the experimental investigation of the jury. First, juror selection research involves the study of the relation between verdicts or leniency toward certain classes of defendants and the characteristics of potential jurors. The second class of research is group study, in which the amount and style of individual participation is observed within the context of simulated jury deliberations (e.g., Strodtbeck, James and Hawkins, 1957). Finally, experimental psychology has made another contribution to the study of the jury; numerous researchers have conducted experimental studies employing legal stimulus materials. Typically, in such a study, the presence or absence of a piece of evidence or other information about a hypothetical case is varied, and its effects on judgments about the defendant by individual jurors are assessed (e.g., Landy and Aronson, 1969). There are two compelling reasons for studying groups in addition to studying individuals. First, the method by which an individual arrives at a judgment may not be analogous to the procedure by which a jury arrives at a verdict. A second disadvantage in relying solely on individual verdicts is the difficulty in examining the decision-making process, since it is essentially private. The public nature of a group deliberation allows greater accessibility to these processes. By examining group discussions of cases, one may gain insight into the manner in which certain factors affect jury decisions. Thus, it is worthwhile to carry out experimental studies using groups of simulated juries

Prevenindo a delinqüência violenta nos jovens

Este trabalho sugere um referencial para pensar a prevenção da violência juvenil. A decisão sobre quais medidas deprevenção do crime devem ser tomadas começa pela análise não só da efetividade, mas também dos custos dasmedidas em diferentes circunstâncias. O segundo passo é igualmente difícil: a intervenção deve ser focalizada nalocalidade específica onde o problema está acontecendo, ou seja, o foco deve recair sobre aspectos mais gerais, comoa juventude, a comunidade e a família, que influenciam as possibilidades de os jovens cometerem delitos. Trata-sede escolhas difíceis. É muito importante, contudo, conhecer as conseqüências das abordagens escolhidas. Do mesmomodo, é igualmente relevante considerar os efeitos da não opção por outras abordagens

Do Independent External Decision Makers Ensure that “An Inmate’s Confinement in a Structured Intervention Unit Is to End as Soon as Possible”? [Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Section 33]

The Government of Canada established Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) to be a substitute for “Administrative Segregation” as it officially was known, or Solitary Confinement as it is more commonly known. The goals – explicit in the legislation governing federal penitentiaries (the Corrections and Conditional Release Act) – included provisions that SIUs were to be used as little as possible and that prisoners would be transferred from them as soon as possible. This report examines some aspects of the operation of the IEDMs – the only SIU oversight mechanism that is currently active – using administrative data provided to us by CSC in January 2021. These administrative data deal only with IEDM reviews of the length of an SIU stay (CCRA: s37.8). We did not have data on other important reviews carried out by IEDMs, most notably the reviews that are required when a prisoner does not get the requisite number of hours out of the cell