Disarming Canadians, and Arming them with Tolerance: Banning Firearms and Minimum Sentences to Control Violent Crime--An Essay on an Apparent Contradiction

In an article published in French in 1997, the author offered reflections on feminism and criminal law that would allow for a better control of violent crime, without Parliament having to resort to excessively severe sentences. In this respect, she argued that there was no contradiction in supportin...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dumont, Helene (Author)
Format: Electronic Book
Language:English
Published: 2001
In:Year: 2001
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1865840831
003 DE-627
005 20250125054849.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231017s2001 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1865840831 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1865840831 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Dumont, Helene  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Disarming Canadians, and Arming them with Tolerance: Banning Firearms and Minimum Sentences to Control Violent Crime--An Essay on an Apparent Contradiction 
264 1 |c 2001 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In an article published in French in 1997, the author offered reflections on feminism and criminal law that would allow for a better control of violent crime, without Parliament having to resort to excessively severe sentences. In this respect, she argued that there was no contradiction in supporting the radical ban of firearms in Canada, while opposing a minimum sentence of four years under the Firearms Act, which currently affects approximately ten serious Criminal Code offences. After setting out her position in favour of the disarmament of Canadians, the author argued that minimum sentences of four years were unconstitutional. Such sentences would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter. They would also be contrary to one of the principles of fundamental justice guaranteed under section 7, which mandates proportionality between offences and sentences. Finally, the author argued that minimum mandatory sentences could not fulfill the objectives of general deterrence and of deserved retribution. On the contrary, they are ineffective in helping to reduce violent crime, and lead to arbitrary applications. In her epilogue to her 1997 article the author expresses her regret that the principle of proportionality has not been promoted as a constitutional principle of justice in the Momsey and the Latimer cases, and wonders if times are too hard for tolerance and moderate sentencing 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232618666.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4390879235 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1865840831 
LOK |0 005 20231017043716 
LOK |0 008 231017||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE69276062 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw