Constitutionalizing Gladue Rights: Critical Perspectives and Prospective Paths Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While remedial sentencing practices for Indigenous accused in Canada have often been described in rights-based terms, Canadian jurisprudence has been reluctant to characterize s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code as an actual “right.” At the same time, front-line judges who are witnesses to — and complicit in — the systemic overincarceration of Indigenous people have created something more out of Gladue than a Criminal Code sentencing guideline. Indeed, they have followed our apex Court’s direction that “application of the Gladue principles is required in every case involving an Aboriginal offender.” Following a few recent expansions of Gladue into yet more spheres of the administration of colonial justice, this paper investigates whether there is utility in reconceiving Gladue as a Charter right. While the substantive and theoretical criticisms of the legal policy mechanism of Gladue are valid, binding judicial and administrative decision-makers with a Charter responsibility to consider the particular circumstances of Indigenous realities when liberty interests of an accused are at stake can serve to strengthen the check on colonial maladministration of 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 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 | 0.032 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".