Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that sentences without a chance of parole are too harsh, even in most heinous cases
Canada’s highest court has ruled that even the most heinous criminals, including mass murderers and serial killers, can’t be locked away without a chance for parole because such prison sentences are “cruel” and unconstitutional.
“Such sentences are degrading in nature and thus incompatible with human dignity because they deny offenders any possibility of reintegration into society, which presupposes – definitively and irreversibly – that they lack the capacity to reform and re-enter society,” the Canadian Supreme Court said on Friday in a unanimous ruling.
The decision stemmed from an appeal by Alexandre Bissonnette, who was convicted of murdering six worshipers and seriously wounding five others at a Quebec City mosque in 2017. Bissonnette was originally sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 40 years, but Friday’s ruling requires that he be made eligible for potential release in 25 years.
While acknowledging the “unspeakable horror” of the mosque attack and the “agonizing scars” that Bissonnette left on Canadian society, the high court said, “We cannot help but feel sympathy for the victims and their loved ones for their irreparable losses and their indescribable pain.” Chief Justice Richard Wagner insisted that the ruling doesn’t devalue the lives of crime victims.
“This appeal is not about the value of each human life, but rather about the limits on the state’s power to punish offenders, which, in a society founded on the rule of law, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” Wagner said.
Canada doesn’t use capital punishment and limits sentences for first-degree murder to life in prison with eligibility to apply for parole in 25 years. In 2011, a new sentencing provision enabled judges to impose consecutive life sentences in cases involving multiple murders. In Bissonnette’s case, with convictions on six counts of first-degree murder, that meant the judge could have made him ineligible for parole for as long as 150 years.
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling finding such sentences “cruel and unusual” applies retroactively to 2011 and will reportedly affect the parole eligibility of at least 18 other convicts who previously had no hope of release in as soon as 25 years.
Alek Minassian, who is awaiting sentencing for murdering 10 people and wounding 15 others in 2018, will likely be the next beneficiary of the high court’s decision. He drove a rented van down a crowded Toronto sidewalk, plowing through pedestrians, and could have been made ineligible for parole as long as 250 years. Instead, he’s now assured of eligibility to seek parole in 25 years.
“I’ll tell you what cruel and unusual punishment is,” Cathy Riddell, who was severely injured when Minassian drove into her, told the Canadian Press on Friday. “It’s an innocent person being murdered. It’s an innocent person being maimed or an innocent person having their life ripped apart.” She added, “I’m ashamed of our country, and I’m ashamed of our court system for doing what they did.”
RT (Russia Today) is a state-owned news organization funded by the Russian government. The information provided by this news source is being included by the Libertarian Hub not as an endorsement of the Russian government, but rather because it is being actively censored by Big Tech, Western governments and the corporate press. During times of conflict it is imperative that we have access to both sides of the story so we can form our own opinions, even if both sides are spewing their own propaganda. The censorship of RT, despite likely being a propaganda outfit for the Russian government, reduces our ability to hear one side of the conflict. For that reason, the Libertarian Hub will temporarily republish the RSS feed from RT. Visit https://rt.com
This post has been republished with implied permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on RT. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.