R V Hamilton Case Analysis

R. v. Hamilton, [2004] 72 O.R. is a very significant case in Canada regarding the sentencing of criminal wrong doings. In 2004, two young, black, single mothers (Hamilton and Mason) pleaded guilty to charges of smuggling cocaine from Jamaica to Canada. The women were found guilty and the trial judge gave them a conditional sentence. The Crown appealed this based on the notion that the sentence was too light given the seriousness of the offence (“The Top Five” 1). I will defend the trial judge’s decision of a conditional sentence using the criminal legal abolitionism’s three main arguments and Angela Davis’ abolitionism alternatives.

Criminal legal abolitionism relies on three main arguments. The first is that today’s criminal law is oppressive and should be abolished. I agree with this argument to an extent since the idea that the law is oppressive can ring true in many circumstances. However, the idea that the law should be abolished in its entirety may be too extreme. The law is a useful technique that can help society function cohesively. There are many avenues the law can chose in reform. In Canada, imprisonment is one of the most readily used criminal punishments and it has not always been proven to be the most effective. The imprisonment of so many individuals is oppressive, and the moral law is seen as a dictatorship of those in power and can reflect an anarchist society.

In the R v. Hamilton Case, the trial judge recognized that not all circumstances are the same, and that there are other ways of treating criminals rather than imprisonment. He realized that each criminal is different, their motives for committing the crime are different and, as such, their punishment should vary. Although a “sentence is not an opportu...

... middle of paper ...

... for the abolitionist alternatives that focuses on reforms to the legal system and gives a first hand experience on how imprisonment is not always the answer. She says it is important to look at the specific individual when determining a sentence.

In conclusion, because of the norm of crime and punishment in North America, when a judge steps out of bounds and takes into account personal experiences, life situations and looks at the criminals rather than solely the crime, the case is usually appealed. The criminal law is oppressive, one sided, and disregards other avenues of punishment or rehabilitation. Critical legal abolitionism’s three main arguments support the trial judge’s decision in handing out a conditional sentence. Angela Davis’ perspective on the criminal legal system also supports the trial judge’s decision and lends knowledge to potential reforms.