Capturing Proceeds from Criminal Notoriety: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishSince the 1970’s, North American legislatures have been concerned with criminals profiting from the notoriety of their crimes through writing and publishing books in which they recount their criminal activities. The preferred regulatory devices which have been adopted mandate the seizure of publishing royalties. While some provinces have followed this trend, Canada’s Parliament has refused to do so because of the Senate’s concerns that such laws would result in an unjustifiable impairment of free speech. Notwithstanding Parliament’s concerns, in 2009 Saskatchewan adopted similar legislation to Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia in enacting The Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. Saskatchewan’s legislation was prompted by news that former Saskatchewan cabinet minister Colin Thatcher intended to write about the investigation of his ex-wife’s murder and the circumstances of the trial at which he was convicted. When, the Saskatchewan Government applied under its new law, to recover the payments that Thatcher received from his book’s publication, Thatcher challenged both the application and the constitutionality of the Act. The resulting Thatcher decision is the only Canadian case dealing with the interpretation and validity of these laws. This article examines the details of the law’s enactment, the history of similar laws in North America, and the argument and judgment in the Saskatchewan case that upheld both the law and Thatcher’s liability under it. The authors question both the bona fides of Saskatchewan’s Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act and whether it can withstand constitutional aspect analysis. They also question the interpretive and constitutional reasoning employed by the Court, especially with respect to the potential impairment of individuals’ Charter rights. francaisDepuis les annees 1970, les legislatures nord-americaines s’interessent aux criminels qui tirent profit de la notoriete de leurs crimes grâce a l’ecriture et la publication de livres dans lesquels ils racontent leurs activites criminelles. Les mecanismes reglementaires de choix qui ont ete adoptes rendent obligatoire la saisie des droits d’auteur. Bien que certaines provinces aient suivi cette tendance, le Parlement du Canada a refuse d’en faire autant en raison des preoccupations du Senat selon lesquelles de telles lois entraineraient une perte injustifiable de liberte de parole. En 2009, en depit des preoccupations du Parlement, la Saskatchewan adopta une loi semblable a celles de l’Ontario, du Manitoba, de l’Alberta et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse en promulguant la Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act (loi sur les profits decoulant de la notoriete en matiere criminelle). La nouvelle que l’ancien membre du cabinet de la Saskatchewan, Colin Thatcher, avait l’intention d’ecrire un livre sur l’enquete liee au meurtre de son ex-femme et les circonstances du proces ou il fut condamne avait provoque la promulgation de cette loi en Saskatchewan. Lorsque le gouvernement de la Saskatchewan fit la demande, en vertu de sa nouvelle loi, de recuperer les paiements recus par Thatcher pour la publication de son livre, il contesta l’application et la constitutionnalite de la loi. Le jugement de la cause Thatcher est le seul cas canadien traitant de l’interpretation et la validite de ces lois. Dans cet article, les auteurs examinent les details de la promulgation de cette loi, l’histoire de lois similaires en Amerique du Nord, ainsi que l’argumentation et le jugement dans la cause saskatchewanaise qui maintint la loi et la responsabilite de Thatcher selon cette loi. Les auteurs mettent en question la bonne foi de la Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act de la Saskatchewan et doutent qu’elle puisse resister a une analyse constitutionnelle. Ils mettent egalement en doute le raisonnement interpretatif et constitutionnel employe par la cour, notamment en ce qui concerne la perte potentielle de droits individuels en vertu de la Charte.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".