Supreme Court of Canada: parole ineligibility of more than 25 years is unconstitutional

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

Two things.

I personally don’t like denying a person’s humanity as the basis for harsher criminal laws.

It may be negligible in this case, but is it possible to say it’s negligible in every case? If it’s negligible in this case, then he never gets out. But can we say that in every possible case, it will be negligible? Strikes me that the possibility of parole, even in extreme cases, is a continuation of the maxim for the presumption of innocence. “Better nine guilty go free than one innocent is convicted.” If there is a chance that even in some extreme cases a person may be able to rehabilitate, we need to keep that option open, while keeping those who can’t rehabilitate incarcerated.

22

Wasn’t it a unanimous decision? I think many of these crimes were exceedingly evil and think long sentences appropriate. But coming up for parole to reconsider the risk every few decades seems reasonable, as long as the gravity of the original act is taken into account along with the estimated risk to society and other factors. Canada should be in line, more or less, with other similar countries. I do not personally believe in capital punishment and humanity and dignity are important.

23

2 posts were split to a new topic: Canadian law and extreme intoxication