Making Room for a Serial Killer Within Canada's Faint Hope Statute: Clifford Olson, Master Manipulator in the Criminal Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 745.6 of the Canadian Criminal Code, also known as the "Faint Hope" clause,' dates back to a 1976 policy decision by the Canadian government to afford that modicum of hope to long-term prisoners who have evidenced sufficient rehabilitation to merit consideration and possible release.2 The statute was meant to be limited to only the most extraordinary deserving cases; but because it was regularly abused, it was eventually denigrated as a "sure bet" clause.3 As a result of this perceived flaw, 4 the statute was modified in 1996.5 One of the modifications was to preclude application of the statute to serial killers.6 Nevertheless, the despised serial killer Clifford Raymond Olson slipped in through the grandfathering prohibition of retroactive application.7 The controversy stirred by Olson's use of the clause$ was two-fold: first, that it afforded him an opportunity for another proverbial day in court, allowing him to articulate his insane justifications and rationalizations; and second, that it demonstrated the vulnerability of the public to the potential premature release of murderers likeOlson, 9 thus mitigating if not wholly vitiating the public confidence in conviction and sentencing of such threats to public safety.'0 After reviewing the background and enactment of the Faint Hope statute," the author discusses the statute's application, in what is considered the intended factual 1. R.S.C. § 745.6 (1996).See also A Killer's Bid to Go Free, MACLEAN'S, Mar. 24, 1997, available in 1997 WL 8471962.2. See CAVEAT, Background Information on Section 745 (June 11, 1996)
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".