Attending to Equality: Criminal Law, the Charter and Competitive Truths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was delivered as part of a panel entitled “The Justness of Criminal Justice: How has the Charter Changed the Problems We Face?” Participants were asked to “reflect on the social justice issues raised in the criminal justice system and how those issues have remained, changed or been redressed over the life of the Charter”. The author’s the sis is: (1) the criminal justice system is overflowing with social justice issues; (2) the most significant insight about the criminal justice system in the past 30 years is that criminal law raises equality values; (3) the Charter has had something (but not much) to do with raising that claim; (4) it would be naive to assume that Charter rights could singlehandedly ameliorate the multi-dimensional nature of the social injustice perpetrated by the criminal justice system; and (5) the Charter’s most important role in improving the system is in its potential to “unearth, render visible and potentiate criminal justice responses to systemic inequality”. The paper examines two areas in which the Charter has had a significant impact on how criminal justice issues are conceptualized. The first is in the construction of blame and the move away from a simplistic subjectivism. The second is in the overt recognition of the equality dimensions of many criminal law problems such as, for example, sexual assault, intoxication and the affirmative defences. The author concludes by examining three recent cases in which equality values have played a significant role: R. v. Tran, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford and R. v. Ipeelee, along with two recent sentencing decisions where equality arguments were unsuccessful (R. v. Nur and R. v. Johnson). While acknowledging that equality raises challenging questions which are complex and multifaceted, the author nevertheless insists that our professional commitments to democracy and social justice require that it be taken seriously.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".