Justice as Justifiability: Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Section 12, and Deliberative Democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandatory minimum sentences present a host of issues for criminal law and policy. The most fundamental of these is that they preclude judges from delivering just sentences in light of case-specific factors. In Canada, the Supreme Court has grappled with this issue through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ section 12, which establishes the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Through the progression of section 12 jurisprudence, the Court has exhibited considerable deference to Parliament, and ultimately conceptualized this constitutional problem as one of disproportionality, demarcated by a high threshold. Commentators have criticized both these dimensions, arguing that the narrow quantitative construction of the issue ignores relevant qualitative dimensions, that the high standard leaves untouched the problematic sentences that nonetheless fall below it, and that the Courts’ conceptual approach has been unreflective and incoherent. While these critiques are each compelling, scholars would benefit from a coherent framework through which they can adequately articulate the nature of the section 12 problem, bolster their calls for reform, and, importantly, defuse the Court’s own democratic defence of deference to Parliament. This article argues that a deliberative democratic framework, which grounds the legitimacy of state action in public justification, captures scholars’ concerns and provides them with the conceptual resources for each of these three needs. Furthermore, applying this framework contributes to the broader project of grounding criminal scholarship in political theory and thus understanding criminal justice in light of the proper relationship between citizen and state.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".