Analysis Of Atif Rafay And Sebastian Burns

​In conclusion, this article is an eye-opening one that does not necessarily paint Canada’s justice system in a great light. Razack shows through the use of examples how Aboriginal people are treated differently and perceived to be lower than whites on the hierarchy of society, and how this lead to the lack of justice in the murder of Pamela George. It is disheartening to think that simply because she was an Aboriginal and a prostitute that her life is considered less important than those of her (white) murderers, but this is the light that Razack brings to the argument, and she does so

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

Since the British North America Act was adopted in 1867, Canada has been developing and writing up their own laws independently from other countries. Many people believe that, though our Canadian laws have come far from the days of the BNA act, they are still not up to par with the harshness of American laws. The advantage that Canadians have over Americans is that in Canada, there is only one criminal code for all Canadians whereas in the United States, every State has their own criminal codes which, unfortunately for the Americans, are not identical. Also, the United States and Canada each have a law that is fraught with the possibility that an injustice will be brought upon those whom these laws apply. In the United States, it is the

“Canada seems to believe that the melting pot approach is one of the better solutions to fit their legal system. “From a cultural perspective, the Canadian legal system takes the `melting pot' approach, which is to say that culturally unique methods of dispute resolu- tion are not accepted by our legal system. Instead, our legal system imposes its values on

The Canadian court system, like anything made by man, has flaws. One of these flaws is the wrongful conviction of many men and women like David Milgaard and Steven Truscott. These innocent men spent years of their life behind bars because of the court system, serving the sentence for a crime they did not commit.

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

Among the many differing cases of wrongfully convicted Canadians, the case of Guy Paul Morin is very interesting. There were many issues that caused an innocent man from Queensville, Ontario to be convicted of the murder of Christine Jessop. We’re going to look at how the police failed to conduct a thorough investigation, how the court system failed, and how cases like this can be preventing in the future.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

The Alien Tort Statute had been used a mere 21 times since the law was passed in 1789. The courts have upheld jurisdiction for only two of those cases. But the results of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980) have changed everything. In this case the court upheld jurisdiction and finally found guilty a Paraguayan ex-police officer for torture and murder of Joelito Filartiga. Pena-Irala, the Paraguayan ex-officer, was about to be deported from the U.S. Filartiga’s family in America contacted human rights activist and lawyer Peter Weiss, requesting that he find some way to prosecute Pena-Irala before he was deported back to Paraguay where he would be safe from prosecution. Weiss had to be creative and be quick about it; only three days were left before the deportation.

The Canadian Justice System is built on the principal of the presumption of innocence where emphasis is placed on on ensuring that the innocent go free rather than the guilty being convicted (Huff, 2013). However, miscarriages of justice occur when an individual is wrongfully conviction, and such an occurrence tarnishes the system’s reputation greatly (Campbell & Denov, 2005). According to the edited case files presented by Moldaver (2009), Romeo Phillion was wrongly convicted of the murder of an Ottawa firefighter, Leopold Roy in 1972. Roy had been stabbed on August 9th of 1967, four and a half years prior to when Phillion had been charged with the crime in 1972 after confessing to the murder while in police custody. Despite recanting the confession immediately, the relatively short trial led to a guilty verdict but after investigations decades later, it determined that the prosecutor 's misconduct had led to the miscarriage of justice (Anderson, 2008). After a series of appeals and references, the case was reopened in 2009 which led to the conviction being overturned, and a new trial ordered whereby the Crown had withdrawn the murder charge because of the lack of reasonable prospect of conviction (Harland-Logan, 2014). Nevertheless, Phillion’s proven innocence after his 31 years of incarceration made him the longest-serving wrongfully convicted prisoner in Canadian history (Anderson, 2008). With this considered, the wrongful conviction of Romeo Phillion had been due to

On the morning of March 9, 1988 a sequence of events took place that would haunt the Aboriginal community in Canada for years to come. J.J. Harper, a First Nations man was walking down the street when he was stopped by a police officer. The officer, Constable Cross, asked to see Harpers identification when an argument ensued. Cross’s gun fired and killed Harper on the spot. Throughout the article, Comack dives deeper into the investigation and what the police did wrong. Research has been done in recent years to show

Canada’s Criminal Justice System and its personnel’s may not be as perfect as it is portrayed. Authorities such as the police and judges are shown as making ethical decisions in favor of peace, equity, and justice in society, although, they may go beyond their boundaries and abuse their powers and authority and are subject to review. In this paper I will discuss how police and judges abuse their powers and authority within the Canadian Justice System and how it is dealt with as well as critique it from both an advantageous and disadvantageous perspective. First, I will discuss the mechanisms, such as the guidelines and rules

This case involves the appellant, Shiwprashad, who after 14 prior criminal record charges, including assault and threatening death, committed robbery (p5). His last conviction prior to the robbery was entered October 20th, 2008, for the sexual interference and sexual exploitation of his 15-year-old step daughter. He pleaded guilty and received a 12-month conditional sentence for sexual interference on top of 100 days he had spent in pre-sentence custody. For the sexual exploitation aspect of the crime he received a 90-day intermittent sentence (p6). Being his sexual interference charge was so severe, on July 8th, 2009, he was reported to be “inadmissible to Canada on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA)”

For the public, a shocking judgement has arised from the Supreme Court of Canada on Hart’s trial—a man accused of drowning his three-year-old twin daughters. The Court ruled that videotaped confessions were inadmissible and the murder charges against Nelson Hart would be withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. For such a heartbreaking loss, the conclusion of this case seems confusing at best. However, with examination into the tactics used by undercover officers in an attempt to secure Hart’s confession, the Court uncovers injustice and emotional manipulation which disputes the legitimacy of the operation.