Failing to Heed Blackstone: A 50 Year Review of Tougher Sentences for Impaired Driving in Canada and How the Judiciary Strives to Avoid Their Imposition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. Introduction More than 200 years ago, Sir William Blackstone recognized that: We may observe that punishments of unreasonable severity, especially when indiscriminately inflicted, have less effect in preventing crimes, and amending the manners of a people, than such as are more merciful in general, yet properly intermixed with due distinctions of severity. (3) Despite this, over the last 50 years, the sentences and consequences of a conviction for impaired imposed under the Canadian Criminal Code or under provincial Highway Traffic Acts have become more severe and more punitive. Politicians have been unable to resist the political attractiveness of being perceived as getting tough on through the simplistic and unquestioned assumption that the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences will serve as a deterrent to impaired driving. (4) Harsh mandatory minimum penalties, combined with police and Crown policies of mandatory charging and mandatory prosecution leave a person charged with impaired no alternative means available to resolve the charge apart from contesting the charges. The combined effects of a policy of mandatory prosecution, coupled with harsh mandatory minimum sentences for impaired offences has led to a significantly increased likelihood that a person charged with impaired will plead not guilty and take their case to trial. The judiciary, faced with mandatory minimum penalties which are unduly harsh, have accepted numerous technical defences we argue, to avoid their imposition. As a result, the harsh mandatory minimum sentences have led to a decrease in the certainty of punishment for someone charged with impaired driving, and undermined the desired deterrent effect that the mandatory minimum sentences were intended to accomplish. II. Increasing Impaired Driving Sentences in Canada A. Canadian Criminal Code (5) In Canada, the federal Government has jurisdiction over the criminal law, enacted primarily through the Criminal Code. (6) Impaired has been recognized as a socially unacceptable behaviour that has been a criminal offence in Canada for over 80 years. (7) The crime of while intoxicated was first introduced in Canada as a summary conviction offence in 1921, and was punishable by mandatory minimum penalties of seven, 30 and 90 days jail, respectively, for first, second and subsequent offences. (8) In 1930, an amendment allowed the Crown the option of prosecuting the offence as an indictable offence, in which case the offence was punishable by mandatory minimum sentences of 30 days for a first offence and 90 days for each subsequent offence. (9) The precursor to the modern offence of impaired was passed in 1951 as a hybrid offence. The offence carried mandatory minimum penalties of a $ 50 fine, 14 days, and 90 days for first, second, and subsequent offences, respectively. (10) Extensive revisions were made to the Criminal Code in 1969. In the context of impaired driving, the law was amended to permit the use of roadside screening devices. The new offences driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml. of blood and refusal to provide a breath sample were also introduced and were also punishable on summary conviction by a mandatory minimum fine or $ 50.00.11 In 1976, these offences became hybrid offences, and became punishable by the same penalties for impaired of 14 days, and 90 days for first, second, and subsequent offences, respectively. (12) In 1985, the mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence for any of the impaired driving-related offences was increased to $ 300.00, and mandatory federal prohibitions of three months, six month and one years were introduced, respectively, for first, second and subsequent offences. The new offences of impaired causing bodily harm and impaired causing death were also introduced, and were punishable by up to ten and fourteen years' imprisonment respectively. …
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it