L'emprisonnement pour non-paiement d'amendes des personnes en situation d'itinérance est-il un traitement cruel et inusité au sens du pluralisme philosophique en droit pénal canadien?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian criminal law, there are currently two types of justification for sentencing which follow distinct purposes. Retributivism and utilitarianism coexist as philosophical theories structuring both substantive criminal law and constitutional law. The coexistence of these two philosophical paradigms ensures a certain balance between core values of the sentencing system, which are the right of the accused to a fair and proportionate punishment (retributivism) and the right of the members of a society to live in a safe society (utilitarianism). Currently, we consider that this philosophical pluralism is undergoing an imbalance due to the neoliberal State's excessive consideration for the protection of the public. One can gauge the extent to which the neoliberal ideology is affecting the sentencing system by getting acquainted with the proliferation of regulatory offences imposed regardless of moral blameworthiness and social circumstances. The preponderance of utilitarian imperatives causes a gradual abandonment of retributive justice and the fundamental principle of proportionality in sentencing. This generates social inequalities in the criminal justice system such as imprisonment for non-payment of fines for people experiencing homelessness, inequalities that may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This type of sentence is the result of many social, political and legal factors, including systemic prosecution of people experiencing homelessness. Through the examination of grossly disproportionate sentence of such imprisonment, demonstrating that it is a cruel and unusual punishment or treatment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is actually possible to illustrate the imbalance of the philosophical pluralism within the Canadian criminal law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".