MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187050213

Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: The Honour of the Crown, Reconciliation and Rehabilitation of the Rule of Law

2012· article· en· W2187050213 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michelle M. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNewfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsHonourLawCriminologyPolitical scienceCrown (dentistry)SociologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis argues that the honour of the Crown and the reconciliation agenda are engaged in the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders, given grossly disproportionate Aboriginal incarceration rates and their underlying causes, including socio-economic problems, community breakdown and cultural dislocation that arise at least partly from the history of Crown-Aboriginal interaction. Such an interpretation facilitates a new relationship between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples and will contribute to the rehabilitation of the rule of law. I address not only the underlying legal questions pertaining to the engagement of the honour of the Crown and the reconciliation agenda in sentencing Aboriginal offenders, but also interrogatories relating to the role of morality in the law and the rule of law for Aboriginal peoples in the sentencing context. Fundamentally, the honour of the Crown and reconciliation principles are interpreted and applied such that the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders can accommodate and attempt to ameliorate colonialist history. This distinctive history produces a legal requirement of reconciliation and honour-based governance if the rule of law is to be a reality for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and Gladue analysis provide a vehicle for the courts to inject the honour of the Crown into the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders, albeit at one remove. However, the honour of the Crown requires a vigorous Gladue type analysis by judges sentencing Aboriginal offenders regardless of the existence of section 718.2(e). Canada must be prepared to accept responsibility and directly address some of the fallout in the criminal justice system from the history of Crown / Aboriginal relations. The honour of the Crown requires a different sentencing approach for Aboriginal offenders independent of section 718.2(e) and reconciliation is an interpretive normative principle underlying the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders, shaping the honour of the Crown and infusing the rule of law for Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal offender rehabilitation needs to go hand in hand with the rehabiltation of the rule of law for Aboriginal peoples as a pivotal component of reconciliation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207