A Rush to Justice: The Institution of Presumptive Ceilings in R v Jordan and Their Potential Implications for Wrongful Convictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its landmark decision in the case of R v Jordan. With the objective of addressing widespread delay within the Canadian justice system, the implications of the ruling were such that the Court set out definitive limits on the length of time in which accused persons must be brought to trial before a stay of proceedings is presumed to be entered. Since the decision, many scholars have emphasized the importance of resolving delay within the justice system to ensure that widespread stays of proceedings are not being entered, whereby the justice system may consequently fall into a state of disrepute. However, an equally important consideration that has not yet been explored concerns the risks that a failure to adequately remedy delay may result in police and Crown rushing to resolve cases within these strict time constraints. To explore this gap within the literature, this paper utilizes wrongful conviction concepts and available data to demonstrate that the current state of delay within the justice system has the potential to contribute to a “rush to justice” mentality among police and Crown. The development of such a mentality is problematic as it has the potential to lead to a wrongful conviction. Considering this elevated risk for wrongful convictions, this paper thus provides a new perspective in underscoring the importance of resolving delays within the justice system in the advent of Jordan
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".