Stephen Harper's Approach To Being Tough On Crime

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 author successfully appeals to the reader through ethos. First, he presents himself as an informed person that understands the purpose of prisons in our societies. In line with this understanding, he acknowledges the fact that politicians formulate many laws to secure our societies from criminals. He further acknowledges the fact that, to some extent prisons have achieved their purpose. However, he expresses the need to change this strategy because it does not achieve much as expected. In the process of appealing to the reader through ethos, he presents himself as a victim of prisons. He claims that he was among thirty-one murders jailed in Louisiana back in 1962 for execution or life imprisonment (Rideau Para. 1). By so doing, he draws readers’ attention to his claim because he presents himself as somebody who understands what goes on in prisons.

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

This essay will ultimately contend that the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014 is an ill-founded initiative made by legislators, giving the impression of a powerful Government without truly reducing the violence. Using a close reading of each provision of the legislation in unison with extrinsic materials, this piece will outline the efficacy, necessity and likely impacts of the Act.

In recent years the issue of mass incarceration in the United States and Canada has begun to take a spotlight in the media, government and public discourse. This paper will examine how Canada incarcerates Aboriginals at much higher rates than those who are not of Aboriginal descent. By examining the culture clash between Aboriginals and the rest of the population and the socio-economic conditions they live in, this paper will show that the criminal justice system works against them, therefore leading to mass incarceration. Finally, this paper will make suggestions as to how the criminal justice system can change in order to reduce the incarceration rates of Aboriginal peoples.

As Ghandi once said, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty”. Canada is a society based around democracy; if the government grants themselves the absolute power to end a person’s life with a single sentence, there are bound to be negative repercussions. It is human nature to makes mistakes, but it is a virtue to learn from them. Instead of resulting to the death penalty as a punishment for committing a serious crime, society should have faith in that person’s ability to change, improve, and be rehabilitated. Moreover, the death penalty is an ineffective way to punish criminals when it comes to serious crimes. If anything, it is an escape for those who have no remorse for their actions. There is no reason to end the life of a human being, no matter how malevolent they are, as it does not benefit society in any way, shape, or form. One could argue that the offender would no longer be able to harm others, but that same result could come from a prison sentence. Furthermore, the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are fundamental human rights that are not subject to a select group of people, but all of humanity. Capital punishment, no matter the reason, is essentially still murder, as the life of another human is being taken. Limitations must be set in order to separate humanity from the criminals it harbors. Society

As of 2008, fifty-eight, about one-third of the world’s countries, favor the death penalty, including the United States (Death Penalty Information Center). Currently, thirty-five out of the fifty states, including California, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas and even Washington, have legalized capital punishment (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). As of January 1st, 2010, 3291 inmates were awaiting their punishment on death row (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). California holds most of them, with 697, followed by Florida with 398 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). The 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed and stated the South has the highest murder rate of all areas of the country and is therefore directly related to being responsible for over 80% of all executions. Also, consistent with previous reports, the Northeast has the lowest homicide rate of the nation and is only responsible with a small 1% of execution (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). Now, in regards to Canada, the death penalty is a sentencing that the country does not justify. However, it has not always been this way. It wasn’t until 1976 that the death penalty was removed from the Canadian Criminal Act, where it was then replaced with the mandatory life sentencing without the chance of parole for the first twenty-five years. This was true for all first-degree murders (Munroe, 2010). Following that date, in 1998 capital punishment was removed from the

It is believed that while all human kind may have had common beginnings in the millennia past, the course of human history prevents all races from reverting back to that common kind. It is further believed that the racism that subsists in today’s society does not exist in the same manner within Canada. While Canada is an egalitarian society, a close examination would suggest that the blunt historical and social truths of racism that are often smugly denied exist very much in Canadian society and have seeped into the Canadian criminal justice system. The racialization of crime, discriminatory policing, minority overrepresentation in prison populations and a blatant denial of justice are aspects of the system that taint much of its past and create a worried present. This paper argues against the prevalent Canadian defence of egalitarianism by establishing the presence of systemic discrimination within the Canadian criminal justice system.

In his essay “Bring Back the Lash”, Peter Moskos alleges that America must rethink the way it tries criminals, houses prisoners and builds new prisons.

Twenty-nine offences in the Criminal Code have a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment time. The majority of these sentences were introduced with Bill C-68, a set of firearms-related legislation introduced in 1995. In addition, there are also mandatory minimum sentences for several other offences, such as child prostitution, betting, pool-making, and impaired driving. Mandatory minimum sentences impose legislated punishments, furthermore, there is no discretion for judges to reduce the sentence for anyone convicted of an offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence in Canada, which is seen by critics as a major problem in our Canadian legal system. Judges should be given legal discretion in reducing the sentence for accused individuals. A number of cases have dealt with the question of whether minimum mandatory sentences violate section 12 of the Charter. This essay will look at R. v. Latimer in depth, as well as briefly explore some additional issues that mandatory minimum sentences place on Canadian Citizens.

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment, as well as harsh sentencing without the benefit of rehabilitation. Two conflicting views are examined, they are from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair, objecting punishments that only attend retribution, especially since they do not contribute to the lessening of crime commission. Reviewed are two works, that of Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David

The challenge of crime policy is that crime is not evenly distributed across the socio-economic population. There are a multitude of reasons why this is a fact, but what is important to know, is that it greatly impacts crime policy. Criminal justice policies have vastly changed, especially in the last fifty years, in an effort to respond to citizens’ needs because of the uneven distribution of crime. Therefore, this means it is a reactionary response. It is imperative to remember that crime tends to effect the poor, the young, and particular ethnic groups more, when examining criminal justice policies. Policies that are of the criminal justice persuasion in their nature, in the extent of the policies, and in their impact directly effects the liberties of a governments’ citizens are always in flux.

More discriminate use of the death penalty — reserving its use for only highly aggravated crimes, the ‘worst of the worst’ — will lessen the risk of flawed convictions and sentences and ensure that those who really deserve to be on death row will be executed. [There shouldn’t be restriction to the death penalty because] … the capital punishment system will remain flawed and it is more likely that less-deserving or innocent prisoners will be convicted and put on death row. (Robinson par. 7)