# Supreme Court of Canada: parole ineligibility of more than 25 years is unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 28, 2022, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-parole-ineligibility-of-more-than-25-years-is-unconstitutional/965242 "2022-05-28T03:03:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 13
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-parole-ineligibility-of-more-than-25-years-is-unconstitutional/965242/13 "2022-05-28T21:27:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Yeah, one can quibble about whether this decision is correct, or if 25 years is the right number, but there’s certainly nothing absurd about it. It’s still possible to lock a criminal up for life, if needed. Really, the only purpose served by “without possibility of parole” is political grandstanding by the DA or judges or equivalent position, so they can show off how “tough on crime” they are. In general I lean as you do. But I’ll make the following point in general. Not poking at you personally; you just explained one POV with admirable clarity and I’m going to take a differing POV expressed (I hope) with equal clarity. … Ref this recent post by an expert and the one it quotes for a pithy bit of background on the purpose of prison: > [@Attempting to murder someone that is already dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/65): > > I think there’s another aspect of the legal system that people don’t think about; segregation. We define crimes, enact laws, and imprison people for the purpose of separating people who commit those crimes from the rest of society. Some crimes are just unique acts. But most crimes are essentially a lifestyle choice; most crimes are committed by people who commit those crimes on a regular ongoing basis. If you take the people who commit crimes on a regular ongoing basis and separate them from s… To the (debatable) degree that punishment is a legitimate goal of prison, the argument can be made that the original trial is the place and time best suited to establishing how much punishment is appropriate. The evidence is fresh, the memories of the victims are fresh, the case is decided according to the tenor and standards of the time, in a fully public venue, etc. Warts and all, it’s the best opportunity for our system to get the right answer, not just an answer. As well, the segregative aspect plays here and now too. The primary trial is making a determination on how much segregation is the minimum acceptable to ensure public safety from this particular defendant. In any prisoner’s subsequent life, whenever parole hearings occur they amount to making a latter-day judgment call on both the current state of the inmate’s rehabilitation, _and_ in effect revisiting the segregation and punishment decisions rendered at the original trial. Specifically for murder cases, at this later date when the victims are long deceased and the prisoner is still here living on the public nickel and none too happily so in most cases, it can be easy to discount the thinking that led to the original decisions on segregation and punishment. The only people being harmed now at this much later date are the prisoner and the taxpayer. Both of whose burden can be relieved by paroling the prisoner. The “happy” news, at least in US prisons is that we don’t even try to rehabilitate, so parole is likely to be denied on that basis alone. As you say, 25 years is rather arbitrary. But if indeed 25 years is the agreed minimum punishment for one murder, what is the appropriate punishment for 2? Or 4? Are they cheaper by the dozen? Should they be? Difficult questions to be sure. Not ones I have answers to. But I would not go so far as to say the “stacking” laws, or “life without possibility of parole” must have been motivated _only_ by political grandstanding. Other more legitimate considerations should, and certainly could have, gotten a look-in at the time the legislation was passed. I’ve not read the Court’s decision to try to understand what rationale they gave in overturning this, nor am I even remotely competent to opine on it even if I had. But I do see the underlying rationale in some nasty cases where “We the Judge/Jury who have been up to our eyeballs in this for the last 6 months have decided on punishment that includes no possibility of parole and we insist that nobody later second guess our decision with comparatively little investment in deeply knowing or understanding the case when they do so.” Appeals exist to correct errors at trial. The parole board is there to relieve the pressure on the public purse and to release folks who have been punished enough and segregated / rehabilitated past the point of further undue risk to the public. A nasty business no matter how it’s sliced. Glad it’s not my job. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-of-canada-parole-ineligibility-of-more-than-25-years-is-unconstitutional/965242)._