Your search
Results 876 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Over the last century, all common law countries have experienced a movement away from a highly discretionary sentencing environment to one in which judicial discretion is more constrained. (For general discussion of structured sentencing, see chapter 6 of A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth and J. V. Roberts (eds), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (3rd edn, Oxford: Hart, 2009).) Some jurisdictions have transformed their sentencing environments by introducing relatively inflexible and tightly binding guideline schemes. Others have taken a middle ground – creating advisory guidance schemes – while a third category has resisted all attempts to structure judicial discretion. This essay describes and compares the divergent histories of two jurisdictions – Canada, and England and Wales – as they have confronted the challenge of structuring sentencing. Despite similarities in the way that sentencing is approached in the two countries they have taken remarkably divergent paths over the past 25 years – and not in the directions that might have been anticipated back in the mid 1980s. After a promising start in that decade, Canada has rejected the adoption of sentencing guidelines, and elected to retain its traditional, highly discretionary approach to sentencing. In contrast, England and Wales has slowly, but surely, adopted a comprehensive and relatively binding set of guidelines, although this outcome also seemed unlikely in 1988.
-
Three decades of research on public perceptions in Canada has fundamentally shifted academic and policy approaches to understanding public views of crime and punishment. The contributions of Anthony Doob and his colleagues have influenced methodology, such as the inclusion of experimental design, and have supported an underlying commitment to understanding the public's view of crime and its relationship to policy. This article examines key findings coming out of this body of research and the impact of this work on current criminal justice policy in Canada. Despite the significance of this body of work on public perceptions research, the impact on current criminal justice policy appears to be diminishing.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgments and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Introduction: This review provides a national summary of what is currently known about the Canadian opioid crisis with respect to opioid-related deaths and harms and potential risk factors as of December 2017. Methods: We reviewed all public-facing opioid-related surveillance or epidemiological reports published by provincial and territorial ministries of health and chief coroners’ or medical examiners’ offices. In addition, we reviewed publications from federal partners and reports and articles published prior to December 2017. We synthesized the evidence by comparing provincial and territorial opioid-related mortality and morbidity rates with the national rates to look for regional trends. Results: The opioid crisis has affected every region of the country, although some jurisdictions have been impacted more than others. As of 2016, apparent opioid-related deaths and hospitalization rates were highest in the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and in both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Nationally, most apparent opioid-related deaths occurred among males; individuals between 30 and 39 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion. Current evidence suggests regional age and sex differences with respect to health outcomes, especially when synthetic opioids are involved. However, differences between data collection methods and reporting requirements may impact the interpretation and comparability of reported data. Conclusion: This report identifies gaps in evidence and areas for further investigation to improve our understanding of the national opioid crisis. The Public Health Agency of Canada will continue to work closely with the provinces, territories and national partners to further refine and standardize national data collection, conduct special studies and expand information-sharing to improve the evidence needed to inform public health action and prevent opioid-related deaths and harms.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
This article raises a dissenting voice against the widespread scholarly view that discretion in remedying legislative infringement of rights can be dialogic, gentle, and cooperative. It focuses on delayed and prospective orders under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the South African Bill of Rights. Scholars have neglected remedial discretion’s significant negative consequences. It harms litigants and other right bearers, potentially producing perverse systemic effects. In particular, keeping a rights-infringing criminal prohibition temporarily in force is unlikely to achieve legal certainty and risks undermining the rule of law. Far from being restrained and deferential, remedial discretion increases the reach of judicial decision-making and enables judges to shape new law more boldly. The widespread exercise of remedial discretion calls for refashioning the conception of a bill of rights’ place in a supreme constitution. If delayed or prospective remedies are sometimes appropriate, they are not something to celebrate.
Explore
Resource type
Topics
- Criminal law (1)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Voyeurism (1)
Publication year
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(193)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (5)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (6)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (8)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (14)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (18)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (54)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (87)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(682)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (237)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (292)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (153)
- Unknown (1)