Bibliographic record
Abstract
The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences, from R. v. Smith to R. v. Latimer, is reviewed and assessed in light of relevant developments in constitutional law and sentencing. These include the Supreme Courts increasing interest in constitutional minimalism and corresponding reluctance to rely on hypothetical offenders and facial declarations of invalidity. The manner in which the Court's increasing concern for crime victims and fault levels has been used to justify upholding mandatory sentences is examined. The author also relates this jurisprudence to trends in sentencing, including an increasing acceptance of mandatory sentences as deserved punishment relative to the fault of offenders. Also explored is the possibility that the Court's decision to uphold mandatory penalties as not being grossly disproportionate may require a ratcheting up of the sentencing tariff to maintain ordinal proportionality. The impact of enacting mandatory minimum sentences on the Court's dichotomy between the punitive and restorative purposes of sentencing is also addressed. Finally, the author concludes that the Supreme Court has abandoned many of the premises of Smith giving Parliament the dominant role in deciding whether to enact mandatory minimum sentences. The author argues that a return to the activism of Smith would produce a strong judicial voice in favour of individualized punishment utile not providing the final word in dialogues between the Court and Parliament on the subject of punishment. This special issue article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol39/iss2/6 SEARCHING FOR SMITH: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MANDATORY SENTENCES
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".