Deprivations of Liberty: The Impact of the Charter on Substantive Criminal Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian jurisprudence recognizes that the right to liberty enshrined in section 7 of the Charter includes the right to make fundamental personal decisions free from state interference. In a similar vein, American jurisprudence recognizes that substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment includes certain unenumerated fundamental freedoms which can be exercised free from state interference. Both jurisdictions apply a form of strict scrutiny when fundamental freedoms are at stake, and this scrutiny requires the state to advance a narrowly tailored and compelling interest to override the exercise of a fundamental personal decision. This paper explores whether the development of substantive review under section 7 of the Charter, and the American Fifth Amendment, has led to a definable zone of self-sovereignty that is beyond the scope of the state’s criminal law power. It is argued that this zone of self-sovereignty has not clearly emerged in Canada with the exception of strong Charter protection for medical choices. The courts have not consistently and clearly defined the types of choices that can be characterized as a fundamental personal decision, and in cases in which the impugned conduct has been characterized as fundamental, the courts have often applied a highly deferential standard of review to the state’s justificatory claims in support of the need to criminalize the conduct in question. Substantive review under section 7 of the Charter can be a powerful tool for the review of public policy decisions to criminalize conduct, but the power is sparingly used and its potential remains underdeveloped and uncertain.
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 | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".