"Cracks in the facade of liberty": The resort to habeas corpus to enforce part XX.1 of the Criminal Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1992, Parliament enacted sweeping changes to the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code (Part XX. 1). These changes were intended to mark a new era of dignity, respect for liberty and balance between the safety of the public and the assessment-treatment needs of mentally disordered persons. However, in Ontario, many people were unlawfully held in jail in spite of orders that they be placed in hospital to receive assessment or treatment under the new regime in Part XX. 1. A number of accused people began to seek the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus in Superior Court to enforce regular orders for placement in hospital. The ten-year string of threatened, aborted and decided habeas corpus cases in Ontario reveals a gap between the progressive goals of Part XX. 1 and the reality of its implementation in Ontario. I propose a twofold response to eliminate the need for resort to habeas corpus. The first is the recognition and reconciliation of the need for collaboration among the institutions responsible for forensic justice in Ontario. The second is a proposal for a specific legislative response for the timing of in-hospital assessments, to ensure alignment with the policy aims within Part XX. 1.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".