100%(7)7 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 13 pages.
appropriateness, which was section 718.2(e ) of the criminal code. This section of the code was inserted in 1995 and became effective in 1996, and paid particular attention to the Aboriginal offenders. The House of Commons in 1994 stated that the reason they referred specifically to Aboriginal people is because they are sadly over- represented in the prisons populations of Canada. (Jeffries & Stenning, 2014, p451)Section 718.2(e ) of the criminal code states a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:(a)A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing.(b)A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances(c)Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh(d)An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances (e)All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. (Saunders & Bromwich, 2016, p330)8
By implementing this section into the criminal code, this allowed the courts to make decisions incases more fairly and just to the offender present. This section led to several Supreme Court judgements (including Gladue in 1999, and Ipeelee in 2012) which were specifically meant to help reduce the problem of over incarceration with Aboriginal people. (Reid & Roberts, 2017, p315) Section 718.2(e) states that to help sentencing judges make their decision, they need guidance to begin the process of sentencing aboriginal offenders different in order to achieve a fit and proper sentence in the particular case. However, when requiring a different approach to achievea fit sentence for Aboriginal offenders, this doesn’t mean necessarily a different result. (Jeffries & Stenning, 2014, p452) However, this section must not get confused and be taken into account that Aboriginal offenders should receive a lesser sentence compared to those who are non- Aboriginal. This section was made primarily to help stop the over incarceration by giving Aboriginal offenders a fair trial and the fair chance like non- Aboriginal people do. When addressing Aboriginal people in this section specifically, this is being addressed to those who live both on and off the reserves, not just to those who live in the Aboriginal communities. While section 718.2(e ) tries to help reduce the mass incarceration, there are many problems that follow with this implication. When judges fail to use the Gladue report in any case that involves an Aboriginal offender, the case would automatically be seen as foul by not following the statutory obligations set in place for fair sentencing. If the case gets settled in this manner, itwould be deemed as an unfit sentence. (Jeffries & Stenning, 2014, p454) 9