Criminal sentencing of Indigenous peoples in Canada

Last updated

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, [1] along with the Supreme Court of Canada, [2] [3] have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

Contents

In sentencing, when an individual is found guilty of a criminal offence, a Canadian judge must consider the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code as well as relevant Canadian sentencing jurisprudence related to Indigenous Canadians. [3] This distinction is a result of disproportionate sentencing of Indigenous peoples in Canada. [4] It has resulted in specific sentencing regimes from the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Criminal Code, alongside other culturally sensitive sentencing practices.

Background

Historically, a number of organizations, as well as governmental and international bodies have published reports which address the issues with the sentencing of Indigenous individuals and the issues of overincarceration. This issue of overincarceration has created the special concern in Canadian contexts for Indigenous sentencing. [4]

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996)

In 1996, in its report Bridging the Cultural Divide, the Commission referred to Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system as "injustice personified." [4] It noted that this over-representation of Indigenous peoples in Canada has been the subject of special attention in Canadian society.

Federal Throne Speech 2001

In 2001, the federal government of Canada pledged to eliminate Aboriginal overrepresentation within a generation. [5]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Calls to Action (2012)

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Canadian body aimed at addressing the legacy of residential schools in Canada, and advancing Canadian reconciliation, recommended the following:

"30. We call upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to commit to eliminating the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in custody over the next decade, and to issue detailed annual reports that monitor and evaluate progress in doing so." [6]

"31. We call upon the federal, provincial and territorial governments to provide sufficient and stable funding to implement and evaluate community sanctions that will provide realistic alternatives to imprisonment for Aboriginal offenders and respond to underlying causes of offending." [7]

Indigenous overincarceration and Canadian criminal sentencing

Specific focus on Indigenous criminal sentencing is seen as response to the problem of Indigenous over-incarceration. The issue was first documented in 1967, in a report by the Canadian Corrections Association titled "Indians and the Law." [4] However, the number of incarcerated Indigenous individuals has been increasing since the Second World War. [8]

The proportion of Indigenous individuals in custody across Canada has continued to grow. [9] In 2020, the number of proportion of indigenous individuals in federal penitentiaries reached a historic high of 30%. [10]

In 2017/2018, Indigenous youth made up 48% of incarcerated youth individuals in Canada, while representing about 8% of the Canadian youth population. [11]

Indigenous females represent approximately 4% of the female population in Canada, [12] but make up 42% of the female federal inmate population. [13]

Two prairie provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, suffer from the highest rates of adult Indigenous overrepresentation. In Manitoba in 2017/2018, Indigenous adults made up 75% of admissions to custody, while representing 15% of the adult population in the province. [14] In Saskatchewan, Indigenous adults made up 74% of admissions to custody, while representing 14% of the adult population in the province. [14]

s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code

s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code instructs the court to consider "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the cicrumstances ... for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." [15]

s.718.2(e) was introduced through Bill C-41 as part of the 1996 Canadian Sentencing Reforms. [16]

Indigenous sentencing jurisprudence

R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688

R v Gladue, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, criticized a narrow approach taken by courts of the time with regards to s.718.2(e). [17] As Ms. Gladue did not live on a reserve, the trial judge was of the opinion that her Indigenous heritage would not be considered under s.718.2(e). The Supreme Court corrected this approach, noting that s.718.2(e) applied to "all aboriginal persons wherever they reside, whether on- or off-reserve, in a large city or a rural area"(at paragraph 91). Generally, the court emphasized that a judge must consider the background of the specific Indigenous individual before the court, as well as recognized systemic factors when crafting a sentence. A judge is obligated to obtain information in relation to this background when crafting a sentence. [17]

R v Wells, [2000] 1 SCR 207

R v Wells, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, confirmed that s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code is to be used to discourage imprisonment and encourage the use of restorative justice practices. However, these restorative practices are not to be preferred where an offence was serious or violent. In those instances, the focus should remain on the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. [18]

R v Kakekagamick, [2006] CarswellOnt 5038

R v Kakekagamick, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, noted that there is a "positive duty on counsel to assist the sentencing judge in gathering information as to the aboriginal offender's circumstances." [19] In this case, the trial judge and trial counsel failed to consider the background of the Indigenous individual before the court. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that a failure to consider this information in accordance with s.718.2(e) and R v Gladue amounted to an error of law.

R v Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433

R v Ipeelee, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, reaffirmed its comments in R v Gladue. In this decision, the Court reiterated a need for lower courts to take into account the oppressive environments Indigenous peoples face as Canadians. The court was critical of the lack of progress made in reducing the number of Indigenous individuals in custody, citing the continued rise of the representative population since the Gladue decision. The court was very specific in their instructions, stating at paragraph 60:

"When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, court must take judicial notice of such matter as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples" [20]

Finally, the court corrected two key errors in relation to s.718.2(e). First, that the individual before the court must establish a connection between their Indigenous heritage and the offence at hand, and second, that s.718.2(e) considerations do not apply when the offence is "serious."

Gladue Report

A Gladue Report, for the purposes of sentencing, may be ordered by the court to provide information related to an Individual's Indigenous heritage for the purposes of s.718.2(e). A Gladue Report is an Indigenous specific form of a Pre-Sentence Report, a report typically ordered to inform the court of the background of an individual prior to sentencing. [21] These reports are designed to address the wider circumstances of Indigenous peoples in general, including histories of colonialism, systemic discrimination, residential schools and the sixties scoop. [22] In addition, the reports are crafted to inform the court of the specific circumstances of the individual before the court. This includes the individual's history of addiction, trauma and victimization. It also provides an extensive background in relation to the individual history of employment, education, social circle and connections with family. [22]

Gladue Reports are handled independently by the provinces and territories of Canada. There is no federal legislation or body regulating or monitoring the use or production of Gladue reports. [23] Depending on the province or territory, Reports are created by independent Indigenous organizations, an arm of the provincial government, or be legal societies in the province or territory. [24]

Indigenous sentencing courts

Indigenous concepts of justice, including restorative justice, have been implemented as both supplementary and alternative forms of sentencing with the Canadian criminal justice system. Throughout Canada, a number of courts have been created that deal specifically with these forms of justice. These courts divert matters from the traditional criminal justice system within Canada. They are variously known as Indigenous courts, First Nations courts, Gladue courts, [25] [26] or Aboriginal courts. [27] [28]

Tsuu Ti'na Nation Court

First opened in 2000, this Alberta court was the first of its kind in Canada. [29] The court represents a combination of both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the peacemaker process, a circle involving the victim, accused, their families, volunteers and resource personnel. [29] Each sitting of the court is presided over by an Indigenous Elder from the community, who ensures that community traditions (such as smudging with sage or sweet grass) and values are upheld at each proceeding. [29] With the consent of the victim, all criminal offences, excluding sexual offences and homicide, can be brought before the court. [30]

The Gladue Court at Old City Hall

First opened at Old City Hall in 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, this court was a response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue (1995). It was the first court of its kind in an urban environment in Canada. [31] Judges, Crown and duty counsel, as well as all other actors within the Court receive Gladue-related training, and Indigenous court workers are assigned to work with each accused. [32] Upon the entering of a guilty plea, an Indigenous individual can be diverted to the Community Council at Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto. This Community Council involves the use of a restorative sentencing circle, including Indigenous Elders, who discuss the offence in question, and set up a rehabilitative plan of care. This plan of care may include access to harm reduction, sweat lodges, support for anger management, counselling for substance abuse, housing, vocational training and work experience. [32]

British Columbia courts

Courthouses in North Vancouver, Duncan, Kamloops and New Westminster in British Columbia offer Gladue Courts for Indigenous individuals who have pleaded guilty to criminal offences. These courts allow for victims, families, Elders, counsellors, Indigenous court workers and social workers to participate in the sentencing proceeding. Together, they devise a sentencing plan with a focus on rehabilitation. [25] As of July 2022, British Columbia has eight Indigenous sentencing courts: [33]

Calgary Indigenous Court

Calgary Indigenous Court (CIC) was established in Calgary, Alberta, in 2019. Focused on restorative justice, and modelled after a teepee, the court sits every Wednesday morning. [34]

Cree Court, Saskatchewan

The Cree Court in Saskatchewan conducts its proceedings in the Cree language, and "the judge may emphasize traditional Cree values regarding respect for one’s family and community in addition to the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code and/or Youth Criminal Justice Act". [35]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Canadian statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a federal Canadian statute that covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences.

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Dangerousness in law is a legal establishment of the risk that a person poses to cause harm. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Truth in sentencing (TIS) is a collection of different but related public policy stances on sentencing of those convicted of crimes in the justice system. In most contexts, it refers to policies and legislation that aim to abolish or curb parole so that convicts serve the period to which they have been sentenced. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know. They argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven-to-nine years" and then release them after they have served only six years.

The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (AJI), officially the Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People, was a public inquiry commissioned by the Manitoba government into the administration of justice regarding the 1971 murder of Helen Betty Osborne and 1988 death of J.J. Harper. Commissioned in 1988, with its final report presented in 1991, its stated purpose was "to examine the relationship between the Aboriginal peoples of Manitoba and the justice system."

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

Life imprisonment in Canada is a criminal sentence for certain offences that lasts for the offender’s life. Parole is possible, but even if paroled, the offender remains under the supervision of Corrections Canada for their lifetime, and can be returned to prison for parole violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Indigenous background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide.

<i>R v Gladue</i> 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case on sentences for Indigenous offenders

R v Gladue is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the sentencing principles that are outlined under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. That provision, enacted by Parliament in 1995, directs the courts to take into consideration "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment" for all offenders. It adds that the courts are to pay "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders".

<i>R v Wells</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wells is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to sentencing principles set out in s 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, relating to Aboriginal offenders. The decision clarified the principles set out in the Court's earlier decision in R v Gladue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punishment in Australia</span>

Punishment in Australia arises when an individual has been accused or convicted of breaking the law through the Australian criminal justice system. Australia uses prisons, as well as community corrections. When awaiting trial, prisoners may be kept in specialised remand centres or within other prisons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration in Canada</span> Overview of incarceration in Canada

Incarceration in Canada is one of the main forms of punishment, rehabilitation, or both, for the commission of an indictable offense and other offenses.

<i>R v Nur</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences in Canada.

Indigenous peoples in Canada are significantly overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. They make up approximately 30 per cent of all incarcerated individuals in Canada despite being approximately 4 per cent of the total population. Explanations for this overrepresentation include historical injustices – and the contemporary outcomes which are results of that history – faced by Indigenous peoples, as well as structural issues within the current criminal justice system itself. These issues include over-policing, ineffective representation in court, inadequate application of bail, and over-sentencing, which are all indications of systemic racism. While these issues affect Indigenous peoples broadly, there are specific implications for Indigenous women and youth.

Prisoners' Justice Day is a solidarity movement that takes place annually on August 10. The movement began in Canada in 1974 in support of prisoners’ rights and to remember all the people who have died of unnatural deaths while incarcerated. The first Prisoners' Justice Day was held at the Millhaven Institution on August 10, 1975, on the first anniversary of Edward Nalon's death. In addition to a day of mourning, six prisoners took part in an eighteen-day hunger strike. In 1976, August 10 was recognized as a memorial day where prisoners would strike in opposition to the use of solitary confinement and to protest inmate conditions within the Prison System by going on a one-day hunger strike and refusing to work.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

References

  1. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2020-07-01). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  2. ↑ Canada, Supreme Court of (2001-01-01). "Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search". scc-csc.lexum.com. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  3. 1 2 Canada, Supreme Court of (2001-01-01). "Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Search". scc-csc.lexum.com. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Bridging the Cultural Divide (Ottawa: Canada Communications Group, 1995), p.28.
  5. ↑ Rudin, Jonathan. "Ipperwash Inquiry: Aboriginal Peoples and the Criminal Justice System" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ↑ "Calls to Action" Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2012. Winnipeg Manitoba. Call to Action #30
  7. ↑ "Calls to Action" Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2012. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Call to Action #31.
  8. ↑ A.C. Hamilton & C.M. Sinclair. Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, Vol. 1, The Justice System and Aboriginal People (Winnipeg: Queen's Printer, 1991), at 101.
  9. ↑ Roberts, Julian &, Reid, Andrew (2017). "Aboriginal Incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every Picture Tells the Same Story". Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice . 59(3) (3): 313–345. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2016.E24. S2CID   151706521 – via ProjectMUSE.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ↑ Government of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator (2020-04-16). "Indigenous People in Federal Custody Surpasses 30% - Correctional Investigator Issues Statement and Challenge - Office of the Correctional Investigator". www.oci-bec.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  11. ↑ Statistics Canada (May 5, 2019). "Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2017/2018". Stats Canada.
  12. ↑ Statistics Canada (February 23, 2016). "First Nations, Metis and Inuit Women". Stats Canada.
  13. ↑ Zinger, Ivan "2019-2020 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator." The Office of the Correctional Investigator. Ottawa Canada. June 26, 2020
  14. 1 2 "Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2017/2018". Statistics Canada. May 9, 2019.
  15. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (2020-07-01). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-29.
  16. ↑ Department of Justice Canada (5 August 2016). "A Review of the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing in Sections 718-718.21 of the Criminal Code". Department of Justice Canada .
  17. 1 2 Canlii. "R v Gladue [1999] 1SCR 688". Canlii .
  18. ↑ Canlii. "R v Wells, [2000] 1 SCR 207". Canlii .
  19. ↑ Canlii. "R v Kakekagamick, [2006] CarswellOnt 5038". Canlii .
  20. ↑ Canlii. "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". Canlii.org .
  21. ↑ Herbert, Alexandra (2017). "Change in Paradigm or Change in Paradox? Gladue Report Practices and Access to Justice". Queen's Law Journal. 43 (1): 149–174.
  22. 1 2 Hannah-Moffat, Kelly &, Maurutto, Paula (2010). ""Re-contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk and Race"". Punishment & Society . 12 (3): 274–279.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ↑ April, Sebastien, Margrinelli Orse, Mylene (2013). "Gladue Practices in the Provinces and Territories". Research and Statistics Division: Department of Justice Canada: 1–15.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ↑ Barkaskas, Patricia; et al. (October 9, 2019). "Production and Delivery of Gladue Pre-sentence Reports: A Review of Selected Canadian Programs" (PDF). International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.
  25. 1 2 "First Nations Court". Aboriginal Legal Aid in BC. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  26. ↑ "Indigenous Law: Indigenous Courts". Library Guides at University of Melbourne . 20 May 2020. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  27. ↑ Whonnock, Karen (2008). "Aboriginal courts in Cana" (PDF). Scow Institute . Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  28. ↑ Marchetti, Elena; Downie, Riley (2013). "12. Indigenous people and sentencing courts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand". In Bucerius, S.M.; Tonry, M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-985902-3 . Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  29. 1 2 3 Johnson, Shelly. "Developing First Nations Courts in Canada: Elders as Foundational to Indigenous Therapeutic Jurisprudence" 3:2, Journal of Indigenous Social development, p.6.
  30. ↑ Milward, David, Aboriginal Justice and the Charter (Vancouver; UBC Press, 2012).
  31. ↑ Clark, S. "Evaluation of the Gladue Court, Old City Hall Toronto. Prepared for Aboriginal Legal Services. Toronto: Scott Clark Consulting Inc. 2016
  32. 1 2 Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada. "Spotlight on Gladue: Challenges, Experiences, and Possibilities in Canada's Criminal Justice System" Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. September 2017. p.41
  33. ↑ "Specialized Courts". Provincial Court of British Columbia. 9 January 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  34. ↑ "Calgary Indigenous Court". Alberta Courts. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  35. ↑ "Cree Court". Saskatchewan Courts. 1 January 2010. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.