For those not in the know, the Wikipedia page on Steven Truscott gives a good summary. In essence, a 14-year-old was sentenced to death by a Canadian court in 1959, for the murder of a schoolmate. His sentence was later commuted to life, he was paroled in 1969; and just last year, was found to have been wrongfully convicted and was then acquitted of all charges. Although Truscott has been much in the news lately due to the Ontario government’s settlement for wrongful conviction, my question deals with the original trial.
In studying this matter on my own, I keep running across references that say things like “the trial judge imposed the only possible sentence [death],” and “the trial judge had no choice but to impose death.” But I was always under the impression that the Criminal Code stated maximums–a judge can impose the maximum or anything less, as he or she feels is appropriate. If Truscott was charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (which was, of course, in force in 1959), I find it hard to believe that the JDA would impose a death sentence, with no lesser alternative, on a juvenile.
I admit that I have not read the CC as it was in 1959, nor have I read the JDA. But if Canadian law typically provides a maximum sentence, with lesser punishments available, then how could the only possible sentence in the Truscott case be death?
Are you quite sure that the law in 1959 allowed for judicial discretion in sentencing those convicted of murder? It’s possible that the law at that time did not allow for any and that execution was the mandatory punishment for murder. This link, from the Canadian Department of Justice, states that it wasn’t until 1961 that the crime of murder was reclassified into two types: capital and non-capital, suggesting to me that in 1959 there may have been no discretion.
Murder is different - we don’t have a minimum sentence for murder even today. The sentence for both 1st and 2nd degree is life imprisonment. The only difference between them is the period of parole ineligibility: minimum of 10 years for 2nd degree, automatic 25 year ineligibility for 1st degree.
The old JD Act had a provision for being tried as an adult, I think. it’s been a while since I looked at the old murder provisions - I’ve got access to them at work, so will look at them tomorrow.
Right - dug out the old stuff. I actually had to look in books rather than disturb some electrons.
Cunctator’s info was correct. The Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-1954, c. 51, didn’t distinguish between degrees of murder, only between murder and manslaughter:
There was also a provision in the Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 160 for a young person to be tried as an adult:
So the Crown must have applied to have him tried as an adult, which then triggered the death penalty.
(As an aside, I don’t quite get how a court could ever conclude that “the good of the child” requires that he be put in jeopardy of death, but different times, I guess…)
Perhaps they weighed the “interest of the community” more than the “good of the child.” From what I understand at the time, the town of Clinton, Ontario wanted blood.
Many thanks for the answer, Northern Piper. Given that reading of the CC, and that provision of the JDA, I can see how the judge really had no choice. Kind of glad times have changed, actually. Thanks again!