LAW WITHOUT ORDER: LOWER COURT SENTENCING, THE APPLICATION OF GLADUE PRINCIPLES, AND JOINT SENTENCING PRACTICES IN CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The rule of law is one foundational to democratic governance. An effective and accountable criminal justice system plays a vital role in the maintenance of effective governance and the rule of law. Justice in sentencing, the most visible output of the criminal justice process, requires a principled and consistent application of sentencing policies in all sentencing decisions. Understanding how judges and lawyers apply general sentencing principles is important since it is a prerequisite to evaluating fairness in sentencing practice. More than 90% of criminal cases are resolved by guilty plea and therefore, sentencing after a guilty plea is more a part of the Canadian justice system than are formal trials. Yet, how judges, Crown prosecutors, and defence lawyers navigate the task of crafting a fit sentence in terms of a methodology or system of decision-making is poorly understood. The goal of this research is to understand how judges and lawyers apply sentencing principles in lower courts in their day-to-day practice. To do so, three separate research studies were developed to investigate the different aspects of sentencing. The subject of the first study is trial judges, who handle most criminal offences, processing hundreds of cases month after month under tight constraints. Using court observation of docket court sentencing decisions, the paper examines whether trial judges are making decisions that meet the demands of individualization, consistency, and equal application of all relevant sentencing principles. Most of the observed sentencing decisions demonstrated that trial judges are not explicitly or consistently applying the sentencing principles articulated in the Criminal Code and case law. The second paper focuses on Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code, which is aimed at reducing imprisonment of Indigenous offenders, and the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Gladue. Using court observation of docket court sentencing, this study demonstrates that the restrictive context of the lower court sentencing environment, along with the complexity of the sentencing task, influences and reduces the number and kinds of Gladue sentencing factors considered and restricts a judge’s ability to appropriately weigh the factors that ought to play a meaningful role in Indigenous sentencing. The findings suggest that, faced with these circumstances, judges may develop a type of ‘perceptual shorthand’ and make situational imputations about defendants’ character and likely future behaviour, thereby allowing stereotypes relating to offenders’ race to permeate their sentencing decisions. The third paper examines the joint sentencing submission practices of lawyers through oral narratives obtained through thirty in-depth semi-structured interviews with Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers. The findings indicate that joint sentencing submission practices do not consistently apply the purposes, objectives, and principles of sentencing as articulated in the Criminal Code and case law. In the aggregate, the sentencing decisions of our judges and lawyers have important implications for legal virtues of transparency, predictability, and accountability, which underpin the legitimacy of our democratic institutions and are powerful and concrete expressions of Canadian values. Overall, the findings from this research suggest that sentencing is not being used in a principled way; instead, sentencing is driven by resource and time constraints, expediency, and efficiency. These findings are used to generate insight for policy choices and evidence-based decision-making in this area.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».