L.M: A Hard Case Makes For Bad Sentencing Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
R. c. M. (L.) was a difficult sentencing case for the judiciary, given its disturbing factual underpinnings of the accused being "convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter and of making, distributing and possessing child pornography." Courts at three levels struggled to arrive at a fit sentence, but the final result still has unsatisfactory implications. The trial judge deliberated a full eight months before sentencing the remanded accused to a global sentence of imprisonment of 15 years (including the maximum penalty of 10 years for the sexual assault) and, also finding that the accused was a long-term offender, ordering supervision for 10 years (again the longest permissible period). The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal in part, reducing his incarceration to 9 years, while upholding the supervision period. The Supreme Court of Canada restored the original sentence, confirming that it was "lawful and reasonable" while commenting that the trial judge's analysis on the long-term supervision issue "was flawless."\nIn this comment it is argued that in its decision on this hard case the Supreme Court has arrived at bad sentencing principles in several respects. It has reified the principle of deference to trial judges in sentencing decisions and has unduly restricted the possibility and compass of appellate review. Further, the case provides broad and explicit encouragement for judges to impose maximum sentences, a message which will contribute to the blunting of whatever impetus there may have been to restrain the sanction of imprisonment. L. M. creates an artificial severance between periods of incarceration and community supervision for long-term offenders, which may not inure to maximizing public protection. Finally, the case does not provide the thorough, thoughtful and contemporary guidance needed by judges facing the responsibility of sentencing the pedophilic offender.
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 | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".