Legal Liberalism Case Study

The facts of this case are extremely distressing, raised in broken households and residential schools both defendants endured difficult childhoods. Drugs, violence and sexual abuse were all common aspects of their lives, this cycle of abuse becomes a constant dynamic as they age. The issue here is regarding sentencing. Sentencing in such cases is problematic since the criminal code requires sentences to be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In such cases it is nearly impossible to estimate the responsibility of the offender. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the lower criminal courts must hand down sentences that recognize the unique histories of marginalized Aboriginal offenders

Liberty is the right of the people to freely choose their way of life, behavior, or political views with limited restriction imposed by the law. While equality promises equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, gender, class or ability. Neutrality is based on the law remaining neutral in any conflicts thus allowing each individual to determine their own conception of good and evil. Liberalism recognizes that law is no more than a human construct, an artifact of human agency, socially and historically located, and therefore capable of renovation. This is a central concept in legal liberalism based on the idea that law is malleable which is a stark contrast to natural law theorist who believe in a single good or evil. Liberal theorist believe that people have the right to liberty, equality and neutrality which allows them to define their own self. However liberal theorist also recognize that humans are social beings and that we live in conditions of interdependence, thus one of the roles of law is to facilitate social interaction. Liberalism also recognizes that sometimes one person’s liberty infringes that of another so it is important to protect rights. Liberalism accepts some of the key arguments of Artifactualism. It recognizes that law is a human construct and it attempts to develop rules and principles.

This case encompasses several key aspects

Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code tries to fight systematic oppression with selective inequality, this section of the criminal code is alarming as it gives us a false sense of equality, liberty and neutrality. This section completely undermines the reality of the Canadian criminal justice system, as although Aboriginals have faced huge injustices, the story of Mr. Ladue or Mr. Ipeelee is not unique to Aboriginals. These circumstances are similar to those of other marginalized groups in society, specifically the working class poor where drug addiction and other vices are rampant. While Section 718.2 (e), alleviates certain injustices in society it does not address the main issues which is inequality itself. What the legal system should be doing is preventing marginalized groups from ending up in such circumstances rather than alleviating injustices which where created by the criminal justice system itself.

Section 718.2 (e), also ignores is the criminal justice systems inability rehabilitate criminal offenders. Most offenders are homeless and unemployed. Looking at Mr. Ipeelee’s background we can see exactly how the system plays out, after his sentence Ipeelee was released in Kingston where it didn’t take him long to commit another criminal act. This is indicative of the systematic marginalization faced by certain individuals in society, Ipeelee was released with