Punishment and Its Limits

The nearly three decades in which Beverley McLachlin was a member of the Supreme Court, including 18 as Chief Justice, witnessed a number of shifts in Canadian penal policy and in the reach and impact of criminal law. During the Harper decade (2006 to 2015) in which the federal Conservatives enjoyed...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Parkes, Debra (Author)
Format: Electronic Book
Language:English
Published: 2019
In:Year: 2019
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866581627
003 DE-627
005 20250114054916.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231020s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866581627 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866581627 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Parkes, Debra  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Punishment and Its Limits 
264 1 |c 2019 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The nearly three decades in which Beverley McLachlin was a member of the Supreme Court, including 18 as Chief Justice, witnessed a number of shifts in Canadian penal policy and in the reach and impact of criminal law. During the Harper decade (2006 to 2015) in which the federal Conservatives enjoyed a majority government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, criminal justice policy took a turn toward the punitive. The federal government tore a page out of the American legislative handbook and sought to “govern through crime”, albeit in a more restrained Canadian style. Criminologists Anthony Doob and Cheryl Webster have posited that pre-Harper, Canadian criminal justice policy was grounded in four pillars that enjoyed support across party lines. These pillars were that social conditions matter; that harsh punishments do not reduce crime; that the development of criminal justice policies should be informed by expert knowledge; and that changes in the criminal law should address real problems. These principles were cast aside, Doob and Webster argue, beginning at least in 2006 with the passage of numerous crime bills that, to name just a few, created new crimes with enhanced penalties; proliferated mandatory minimum sentences; reduced the availability of conditional sentences served in the community; made it easier to have someone declared a dangerous offender (and therefore, imprisoned indefinitely); removed opportunities for early parole; and more 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232645385.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 4394218217 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866581627 
LOK |0 005 20231020043626 
LOK |0 008 231020||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE69297425 
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