Effects of Mandatory Minimum Sentences on the Rights of the Indigenous Population in Canada: A Proposed Solution to Bill C-10's Conflict With Section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of Canadian laws underwent mass revision in 2010 with the passing of Bill C-10 – an expansive piece of legislation that amended a variety of laws, including the Canadian Criminal Code, lengthened sentences, and introduced a range of mandatory minimum sentences. Since its passing critics have noted the tension between Bill C-10’s mandatory minimums, and affirmative active legislation contained in Section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code, requiring that judges consider the background and unique circumstances surrounding Indigenous offenders, and when appropriate, use discretion when sentencing. \n This thesis analyzes the feasibility of a safety valve for mitigating the conflict between Bill C-10 and Section 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code. In part, the thesis seeks to determine whether a safety valve option was considered during the framing of Bill C-10. The research focuses on the Canadian government’s role in the formation of the Canadian Residential School Program, and analyzes the long lasting impacts of the programs associated trauma in connection with 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Further, the study explores the conflict between Bill C-10’s mandatory minimums, and 718.2(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code’s judicial discretion requirement, ultimately suggesting that implementation of a safety valve may reduce the tension between the two pieces of legislation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it