More handpicked essays just for you.
Death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment
Cruel and unusual punishment capital punishment
Cruel and unusual punishment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The criminal case of R v. Smith (Edward Dewey) had a significant impact on Canadian law for narcotics punishments, as well as redefined the concept of crueal and unusual punishment. Throughout the course of this case, the base concept of cruel and unusual punishment was re-defined and put into effect. Since cruel and unusual punishment is a changing concept as time goes on, the redefinition of it was entirely necessary. As for the Canadian citizens that this has affected, many non-violent people who are affiliated with drug trafficking, either voluntary or non-voluntary, will have reasonable punishments instead of grossly disproportionate ones. The case of R v Smith in 1987 had a meaningful influence on Canadian law pertaining to narcotics …show more content…
Under section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms, everyone has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Since the concept of cruel and unusual punishment is considered a “Compendious expression of a norm” (Canadian Legal Information Institute) it must be redefined as often as the norm of that specific time is redefined. In this case the concept of cruel and unusual punishment was defined in three separate parts. The first is “The punishment is of such character or duration as to outrage the public conscience or be degrading to human dignity” (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This outlines the necessity that the punishment should be within a reasonable duration as to not make the general public outraged by it. The punishment shouldn’t degrade human dignity either. Article 1 in the Universal Declaration of Humans rights states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (United Nations). This article directly protects part one of the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. The second part of the new definition is that “The punishment goes beyond what is necessary for the achievement of a valid social aim, having regard to the legitimate purposes of punishment and the adequacy of possible alternatives” (Canadian Legal Information Institute). This second part confirms that the punishment achieves the social …show more content…
A study done within the U.S. by the American Civil Liberties Union was conducted in order to show the difference in sentences for trafficking criminals in 2005. The study indicated that the majority of the lowest level cocaine and crack trafficking defendants received the same minimum mandatory sentences as the highest level traffickers. These minimum sentences were either 5 or 10 ten-year prison sentences. Also, district court judge of Iowa, Judge Mark Bennett, stated that he never would have though that he “would have sent 1,092 of my fellow citizens to federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences ranging from sixty months to life without the possibility of release. The majority of these women, men and young adults are nonviolent drug addicts.” (Stamm). He went on to say that he could count the kingpins he incarcerated out of the 1,092 criminals on one hand. This can be easily carried over to Canadian federal law where the majority of drug offenders are small time minor criminals. However, the federals aim is to reprimand the major drug
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
In 1608 the case of Captain George Kendall became the first recorder Capital Punishment case in the colonies. Capital punishment has been a very controversial topic since the beginning of the 13 colonies. Capital Punishment is defined as the legally authorized killing of a subject as punishment for committing a crime, mostly involving a homicide. In the first couple of years that Capital Punishment was first used, the subject would be hung from a tree in a public viewing, but as laws changed it became a more private practice. Many people have issues with Capital punishment, while some people believe it is just. Lawyers have fought for many years for what they believe to be the injustice and immoral practice of killing a human being,
This documentary highlighted the devastating consequences that these mandatory minimum sentencing’s can have on people such as in the case of Kemba Smith and Johnny Patillo, two first time offenders who were charged under the mandatory minimum sentencing’s. Johnny Patillo sentenced to serve 10 years and Kemba Smith sentenced to serve 24.5 years, these individuals were no different than your average citizen who got caught in the fire of these barbaric laws and individuals like these two are used as a deterant to send a message to the public in their efforts to take control of the war on drugs..
The Eighth Amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Eighth Amendment has two specific “elements” which define an individual’s actual rights retaining to the Eighth Amendment. The first “element,” “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed” states that fines or bail should not be overly unobtainable or imposed on an individual. The second “element” of the Eighth Amendment, “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” states that cruel or unusual punishment will not be inflicted.
Milton, Neil. "Lessons From Rodriguez V. British Columbia." Issues In Law & Medicine 11.2 (1995): 123. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
Early societies were based on a simple code of law: "an eye for an eye
Capital punishment remains a cause for debate with people continuing to disagree. on what cruel and unusual punishment consists of. Cruel and unusual punishment being defined as torture or a deliberately degrading punishment, in no way does the death. penalty falls into this category. Having the death penalty in our society deters potential violent offenders from committing crimes, saves the government money, and guarantees that offenders will not commit these crimes again.
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
Capital punishment is crime's most dreaded consequence, death. Hanging was Canada's form of capital punishment up until 1976 when it was abolished. Webster's Dictionary defines capital punishments as: "The penalty of death for the commission of a crime." (Webster's, 1994, 43). The chance of capital punishment being reinstated in Canada has been very slim up until now. Recently the Canadian Alliance Party has put forth efforts to reinstate it, which has put the controversial topic back up for debate. This has divided many Canadians concerning their beliefs. Capital punishment should never be reinstated in Canada as it is a barbaric practice that is unjust. This essay will clearly demonstrate that reinstating capital punishment would be illegal as it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Deceleration of Human Rights. In addition, this paper will show that capital punishment is a cruel and barbaric punishment. Finally, this paper will examine how capital punishment does nothing to deter people from committing crimes.
Drug violators are a major cause of extreme overcrowding in US prisons. In 1992, 59,000 inmates were added to make a record setting 833,600 inmates nationwide (Rosenthal 1996). A high percentage of these prisoners were serving time because of drug related incid...
In the year 1970, the Canadian government founded the Law Reform Commission of Canada to ensure the progression of law making and to make recommendations for legal changes . The Law Reform Commission of Canada is constantly importing and suggesting proposals towards the criminal code of Canada. During the year of 1985, t...
Merica, Dan, Carol Cratty, and Jessica Yellin. "Eric Holder Seeks to Cut Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.