Reducing Indigenous Over-Incarceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, the Government of Canada implemented Bill C-41 which led to major sentencing reforms. One change was the creation of section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which signaled that the criminal justice system had become overly reliant on custodial sentences. The long-recognized concern for the disproportionately high rates of Indigenous incarceration was further recognized by this provision. To tackle the problem of Indigenous overincarceration, the judiciary was to consider the unique systemic and background circumstances of Indigenous offenders during sentencing proceedings. In the case of R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed that such considerations were an indispensable responsibility of sentencing judges. Specialized sentencing reports, called Gladue Reports, have become increasingly common method of capturing the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. The approach to the creation and funding of these reports varies drastically between provinces, with some provinces having fully funded programs and others not having any such program at all. Judicial interviews tend to indicate a preference among sentencing judges in favour of Gladue Reports due to their propensity for detailed information about the individual offender. Despite the general favour, empirical studies indicate that there is no clear relationship between Gladue Reports, Indigenous identity and the ultimate sentence received by an offender. This paper provides a comprehensive review of studies relating to the efficacy of Gladue Reports in the sentencing to provide greater insight into whether these reports are sufficiently addressing the legislative intention of section 718.2(e): reducing the judiciary’s reliance on custodial sentences for Indigenous offenders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".