An Unconventional Approach to Justice for All in Canada The definition of the word “justice” according to Merriam-Webster is, “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair” (“Definition of Justice”). Almost automatically associated with “justice” to many minds is the “criminal ‘justice’ system”—and criminals. Canada’s criminal justice system and the penalties for crimes committed in Canada have been recent topics of discussion preceding this year’s general election. The Conservative Party of Canada promised mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of “serious” crimes, including drug trafficking and violent crimes. This was criticized by the Liberal Party of Canada as well as the New Democratic Party of Canada. Both parties were concerned with an influx of stress on the already crowded system. If “justice” means “fair”, what does that mean for Canada? What does fair look like for the criminal, the victim, and society as a whole? Here lay the debate: what is better for the greater good, a “tough on crime” attitude with harsher sentences for criminals, or rehabilitation of the offender in question with hopes of rejoining society? Perhaps there are also other unexplored and new ideas for dealing with criminal behavior that need to be analyzed in order to objectively make an informed decision. In the coming months and years, the new Canadian government will revisit, revise, and perhaps make significant changes to the way we deal with criminals, and these modifications will
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The Canadian criminal justice system is often represented by the balanced scales of justice. These scales symbolize the need for the law to be viewed objectively in order to ensure a fair determination of innocence. Ideally, the criminal justice system should incorporate the values of the scales of justice to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law (Jordan, 2014). When dealing with crime, this system mainly uses methods of retributive justice in order to achieve its goals. However, despite justice being supposedly impartial, there is an overwhelming amount of injustice in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the charging of the individuals in court to their sentence in prison (Jordan, 2014). To combat this
Canadian Criminals are a major part of Canadian society. In our country if you were not the direct victim of a crime you tend to forget the members of society that take pleasure in causing societies grief. As in the case of James Hutchinson and Richard Ambrose, whose crimes were committed in December of 1974.1 They were convicted of killing two Moncton City Police officers. Today, years after the murders were committed Ambrose and Hutchinson are still the center of a major controversy that has plagued our parole system. In order to fully understand the controversy that Ambrose and Hutchinson posses you must look at the
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
The Criminal Justice System has many components that make it up. There are many differences and similarities between Canada and America like the culture, religion, and governments. Some of the main differences and similarities being the Criminal Justice System. The Criminal Justice System is the law that is related to arresting, sentencing and punishing people if found guilty with jail time, probation, or community service. In this research paper, I will be stating some of the main differences and similarities between the Canadian and American Judicial System.
Canada's Justice System It’s a common belief that western nations believe that their own justice system is blind, and that all people are equal before the eyes of the law. Whether or not that’s true is an entirely different scenario. Canadians take pride in our open mind approach to and acceptance of all cultures, multiculturalism is what makes this Canada so unique and great.
During the 1990s, the emphasis and development of restorative justice perhaps reached its summit when both the federal government and the RCMP outwardly problematized conventional justice on the one hand, while they “championed” restorative justice on the other. Victims have generally expressed their satisfaction after participating in restorative justice programs. Moreover, while conventional justice has been plagued by significant reoffending rates, many scholars have found that restorative programs demonstrate success in this regard. Thus, we essentially have a failed experiment by Canada's leading and national police force on the one hand, but widespread academic support for restorative justice both in Canada and internationally on the
The Canadian criminal justice system consists of multiple roles in order to sustain a well-working government system. The system is put in place in order to keep safety, equality, peace and fairness. There are four main functions of the criminal justice system that are interrelated segments that help protect a society from crime. The criminal justice system consists of policing, courts, corrections and parole. The component of the Canadian Criminal Justice System that will be discussed is about the process and function of the courts.
Canada today faces a major challenge when it comes to access to justice. The civil, criminal and family justice system has become very complicated, slow and extremely expensive for majority of Canadians. These issues are particularly glaring to low income earners, people with disabilities and other minorities. Canadian justice system have become incapable of providing solutions that can addressing problems brought to it. With the creation of the Canadian charter of right and freedom, access to justice became more of an equality issue. It moved from simply being the capacity to litigate, to the quality of outcome or outcome focused. While there have been efforts to reform the system, our courts continues to lack institutional structures that can address change and create a more equitable judicial system both in capacity and outcome.
When a young person breaks the law in Canada, they are dealt with differently than adults, for they lack the level of maturity and development. The federal law that governs Canada’s youth justice system is Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The act was created in 2003 with a purpose to hold youth (12-17) accountable through sanctions that contribute to the protection of the public. The basic principles of this act are crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, protection of the public and youth, meaningful consequences, and accountability. Hence, it is fair and equitable, as well as effective for youth to a great extent, with preventing crime while ensuring the accountability of a young offender. The data from Statistics Canada show that youth crime has decreased 42% since 2000. This essay focuses on how the justice system effectively ensures the protection of society, the innocent, and ensures that those who break the law, face appropriate consequences.
The aspect of the Canadian justice system that this article relates to is obviously policing/ law enforcement. Specifically this article goes into the regulations of policing as Ontario police officers now have to follow stricter regulations when stopping any member of the public. This is important in relation to the Canadian justice system as police officers stopping citizens is considered a controversial issue as people feel random stops or carding are considered arbitrary, and unnecessary, and this violates section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms which states that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and Carding is “A practice by which officers stop, question,
In his Article, “The Range of Justice”, Gerald Gaus Explains that there will likely never be one vision of a “just society” Due to this, Gaus concludes that instead individuals have the responsibility to learn tolerance towards others whose views may be different than their own. This “moral maturity” is essential to understanding that we live in a diverse society that will likely never come to share a single conception of what is best for society as a whole, and to understand that they may be forced to live under policies and/or practices with which they may not agree.
The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.
Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces