MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911483967 · doi:10.60082/2563-8505.1130

A Charter Reality Check: How Relevant is the Charter to the Justness of Our Criminal Justice System?

2008· article· en· W1911483967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueSupreme Court law review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterCriminal justicePolitical scienceLife imprisonmentCriminal codeEconomic JusticeImprisonmentLawCriminologySentenceCriminal procedureCriminal lawTheory of criminal justiceSociologyPrisonComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the Charter has made many important improvements to the criminal justice system, this paper argues that there is a need for a greater sense of perspective on the importance of the Charter to the criminal justice system. This paper critically examines the impact of the Charter on rates of imprisonment, rates of pre-trial imprisonment, rates of Aboriginal overrepresentation in prison and among crime victims, rates of crime victimization, national security activities, wrongful convictions, trial delay and complexity, and the Criminal Code. It concludes that the Charter has likely not been a major factor in explaining why Canadian rates of imprisonment have not followed the alarming post-1982 American trends. Likewise, the Charter cannot take credit for recent reductions in youth imprisonment under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Parliament still very much matters when it comes to Canada’s penal policy. The right to reasonable bail in the Charter has not stopped dramatic increases in remand populations and the Charter has not significantly benefited either crime victims or Aboriginal people, who are over-represented among both crime victims and inmates. Although the Charter has been both a cause and a cure for trial delay, it has only been a partial cause and a partial cure, and fundamental legislative, organizational and cultural changes are needed to respond to trial delay and complexity. Although the Charter has restrained Canadian anti-terrorism law, it has not addressed Canada’s unique and awkward two-court structure for determining national security confidentiality claims, the need for effective witness protection programs or the sustainability of using immigration law as a form of anti-terrorism law. Similarly, the Charter has helped recognize and respond to some of the causes of wrongful convictions such as lack of Crown disclosure, but it has not addressed many of the other causes of wrongful convictions or barriers to redress. Although the Charter has trimmed some of the excesses of the Criminal Code, fundamental reforms and simplification are still needed. The Charter can increase the justness of our justice system, but it cannot guarantee it. There is much work to be done and much of it will not involve the Charter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.027
Scholarly communication0.0240.026
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0070.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupreme Court law reviewSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207