MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090113670

Criminal Justice, Indigenous People, and Political Power in Canada

2020· dissertation· W3090113670 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teddy Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2020
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsCriminal justiceCriminologyPolitical sciencePower (physics)Economic JusticeSociologyLawPublic administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My dissertation contributes to the work of reconciling radically different justice concepts with a view to designing institutions that can be accepted as legitimate by Indigenous and non- Indigenous Canadians alike. The project is principally a work of political theory within Canadian politics, but it draws upon and contributes to literatures in political philosophy, empirical political science, criminology, and law. The central question of my dissertation is, how can criminal justice in Canada be rendered legitimate for Indigenous people? I argue that legitimate criminal justice is possible, but only if Canadian criminal justice practices are altered to incorporate fundamental insights from Indigenous theories of justice. Chapter two surveys the failures of Canadian criminal justice for Indigenous people, including overincarceration, underrepresentation on juries, the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women, and over- and under-policing. Drawing on Indigenous voices, I argue that these are symptoms of an underlying problem: the criminal justice system is not legitimate for Indigenous people. In the third chapter, I argue that the prominent liberal theories of legitimacy that undergird the Canadian polity cannot legitimate the Canadian constitutional framework or the institutions of criminal justice. Instead, criminal justice institutions must establish a form of freestanding legitimacy by deploying practices that themselves are acceptable to Indigenous people. In chapter four I make the case that a separate system of justice for Indigenous people cannot provide legitimacy. The lives of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians are sufficiently intertwined that justice problems would inevitably cross jurisdictional boundaries (defined territorially or by identity), leaving many caught in the other system. In matters of justice, separation cannot obviate the need for reconciliation. In chapter five, I work to reconcile Indigenous and non-Indigenous understandings of a concept fundamental to Canadian justice: impartiality. I develop an inclusive model of impartiality implicit in Indigenous practices of circle justice that can supplement the Canadian model of impartiality as disinterestedness. In the conclusion, I note that the level of punitiveness of Canadian justice is unjustified, and a less punitive approach for all would open up more juridical and legal space for Indigenous approaches to justice.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207