Chapter 9: R v. Gladue: Sentencing and the Gendered Impacts of Colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various models and practices of justice have been in place in Canada for over a decade. During this time, much feminist commentary on justice practice has focused on cases where women have been victims of crime, in particular, domestic violence and sexual assault. There has been less attention paid to cases where women themselves come into conflict with the criminal law, and the circumstances under which they may be the focus of intervention. This chapter will argue that restorative sentencing goals and factors, as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Gladue and when applied to Aboriginal women, should include a gender analysis. For many Aboriginal women, systemic gender inequality is inextricably linked to racial inequality in their experiences of colonialism and it should be similarly taken into account in sentencing. Some of the markers of colonialism set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Gladue case are experienced disproportionately by Aboriginal women, or they are experienced in particular ways by women. This chapter will discuss the legislative and jurisprudential framework for sentencing Aboriginals offenders in Canada. It will argue that this framework should be applied to Aboriginal women offenders in ways that account for gendered experiences of colonialism and later will apply this gendered sentencing framework to three cases: R v. Gladue, R v. Moyan, and R v. Norris. These cases fall short of systemically accounting for the ways in which race and gender interlock in the lives of Aboriginal women. In particular, they represent incident-based, individual approaches to sentencing, rather than a broad, systemic approach. These cases also provide exemplars of the broader theoretical and practical aspects of sentencing discussed in this chapter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".