Anchoring Lifeline Criminal Jurisprudence: Making the Leap from Theory to Critical Race-Inspired Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as a starting point the claim that anti-Black racism permeates Canadian society and finds expression in our institutions, most notably the criminal justice system. Indeed, anti-Black racism in criminal justice and its impact on Black lives are not credibly in dispute. Thus, what should concern legal scholars is the staying power or permanence of racism. In other words, should Canadian legal scholars ‘get real’ about the intractability of race? Or can anti-Black racism be effectively confronted by developing legal and evidentiary tools designed to fix, rather than dismantle, the current system? Put another way, this article aims to move from describing a well-known phenomenon—the existence of anti-Black racism in the criminal justice system—to identifying radical approaches to confront and subvert it. In that vein, this article will explore a critical question: how can we make the leap from CRT to CRT-inspired, lifeline criminal jurisprudence?\nCet article prend comme point de départ l’affirmation selon laquelle le racisme anti-Noir imprègne la société canadienne et trouve son expression dans nos institutions, plus particulièrement dans le système de justice pénale. En effet, le racisme anti-Noir dans la justice pénale et son impact sur la vie des Noirs ne sont pas contestés de manière crédible. Par conséquent, ce qui devrait préoccuper les juristes, c’est le caractère durable ou permanent du racisme. En d’autres termes, les juristes canadiens doivent-ils se rendre à l’évidence que la race est un problème insoluble? Ou bien peut-on lutter efficacement contre le racisme anti-Noir en élaborant des outils juridiques et probatoires conçus pour réparer, plutôt que démanteler, le système actuel? En d’autres termes, cet article vise à passer de la description d’un phénomène bien connu—l’existence du racisme anti-Noir dans le système de justice pénale—à l’identification d’approches radicales pour le combattre et le subvertir. Dans cette veine, cet article explorera une question critique : comment faire le saut de la TRC à une jurisprudence pénale inspirée de la TRC, qui soit une ligne de vie?
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 | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.134 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".